Senator Lindsey Graham abruptly ended a meeting with Lebanon’s Chief of Defense, General Rodolphe Haykal, after a stark disagreement over the nature of Hezbollah. The breaking point came when Graham directly asked Haykal if he considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization, receiving a chillingly qualified response: “No, not in the context of Lebanon.”
Graham didn’t hesitate. He immediately terminated the discussion, expressing deep frustration with what he sees as pervasive dishonesty in Middle Eastern politics. He forcefully stated that Hezbollah is unequivocally a terrorist group with American blood on its hands, a designation affirmed by both Republican and Democratic administrations since 1997.
The Lebanese general’s reluctance to condemn Hezbollah has ignited alarm bells among security experts. Matthew Levitt, a leading Hezbollah scholar, explained that Haykal’s comments suggest the Lebanese Armed Forces may view Hezbollah as a group to be managed, rather than dismantled – a direct violation of existing ceasefire agreements demanding their disarmament.
This perceived willingness to “deconflict” with Hezbollah, rather than disarm it, raises serious questions about the reliability of Lebanon as a partner, particularly as it seeks further international aid. The core argument for continued funding hinges on Lebanon’s commitment to disarming the group, a commitment now cast into doubt.
Israeli security expert Sarit Zehavi wasn’t surprised by Haykal’s position, highlighting a fundamental problem: Hezbollah isn’t designated as a terrorist organization within Lebanon itself. She asserts that the Lebanese army lacks the will to confront Hezbollah, and the group has no intention of voluntarily surrendering its weapons.
Zehavi further alleges that the Lebanese Armed Forces have actively assisted Hezbollah in concealing its military activities and weapons caches in southern Lebanon, deepening concerns about the extent of the group’s influence and control. This creates a dangerous dynamic within the country.
The U.S. brokered a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel in November 2024, with a plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament by the end of 2025. However, that deadline has passed without any significant progress, fueling skepticism about Lebanon’s commitment to the agreement.
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Syria, Thomas Barrack, recently described Lebanon as a “failed state,” citing its deeply flawed confessional political system – a power-sharing arrangement that consistently leads to deadlock. He acknowledged the difficulty of disarming Hezbollah through military force alone.
Barrack offered a controversial suggestion: that Lebanon’s political leadership should seek a direct deal with Israel. He expressed skepticism that simply eliminating Hezbollah members would solve the problem, arguing it would likely create more. This highlights the complex and intractable nature of the situation.
Walid Phares, an expert on Hezbollah and Lebanon, emphasized that disarming the group isn’t just a demand from the U.S. and the international community, but a long-held desire of a majority of Lebanese citizens. Protests dating back to 2005 demonstrate widespread opposition to Hezbollah’s continued armed presence.
Hezbollah’s entrenchment began after the withdrawal of Syrian forces, culminating in a 2008 military coup that allowed the group to seize power. This was further solidified by its actions during the 2006 conflict with Israel and its support for Hamas during the recent hostilities, demonstrating a pattern of destabilizing behavior.
The Trump administration had already begun increasing pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, signaling a growing U.S. determination to address the threat posed by the organization. The current situation underscores the urgency and complexity of this ongoing challenge.
