Trump’s failed strategy in Lebanon.
The National Interest wrote that a year after the “ceasefire” between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the regime may once again move towards the resumption of full-scale conflicts.
“Alexander Langlois”, an analyst at this American media center, believes that the situation in Lebanon is a clear example that shows that the “peace through strength” approach of Israel and Washington – which is the code name for an open aggression against enemies with the aim of achieving short-term tactical victories, not major strategic gains – cannot change the current geopolitical structure of the Middle East without a serious review.
In fact, by unconditionally supporting Tel Aviv, the United States is moving on a path that neither leads to a fundamental solution to the problem nor can it prevent Lebanon from plunging into a new round of violence. A year after the start of the “ceasefire” between Israel and Hezbollah, the situation is such that Israel is openly preparing to resume full-scale war, which shows that Washington is unable and unwilling to force its Israeli partner to adhere to its commitments.
According to the November 2024 agreement, both sides were supposed to withdraw from southern Lebanon and stop mutual attacks, but Israel has made the agreement ineffective by occupying five important border points and continuing daily attacks on southern Lebanon and even the areas around Beirut. Although the Lebanese army has tried to gradually deploy its forces in the south, the continuous Israeli operations and attacks have not only disrupted this process but also led to the deaths of a significant number of Lebanese soldiers, and even the UN peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL) have not been immune from these attacks. In such circumstances, instead of putting pressure on Israel to stop the tensions, the United States has in practice stood by it and provided the necessary space for the continuation of this tense policy.
The report states: For the Lebanese government, US policy has created a double dilemma: on the one hand, Western and Israeli pressure to intensify the confrontation with Hezbollah, and on the other, internal pressure and opposition from Hezbollah and its allies to any close cooperation with the West on the issue of disarmament.
The US has followed the same failed model even in Syria, and by supporting Israel’s policy of occupation and continuous attacks, it has led the situation to a long-term stalemate. Washington’s efforts to expand its military presence in Syria alongside Israel also show that the United States is stepping on the path of strengthening its hegemony, rather than adjusting the behavior of its regional partner. The report states: In the “new Middle East,” this project is nothing more than a repetition of the past. Establishing an unstable situation based on occupation and military violence will not achieve the long-standing “peace” of the Middle East. Repeating such approaches in the past led to today’s disasters.
The author concludes: After a year of disastrous and unilateral ceasefires, Lebanon and President Donald Trump’s broader Middle East strategy are at a turning point. If he is a “dealer” and a “peacemaker,” he must recognize Israel’s role as a disruptor of agreements and peace in the Middle East and, using Washington’s vast influence over Tel Aviv, rein in this junior partner to end the instability and chaos it imposes on its neighbors.