Photo illustration – “Lebanon’s future should be decided in Beirut—not in Tehran, Damascus, or any other foreign capital.”
Washington keeps looking for answers in the wrong places
By: The Editorial Board, Opinion
The announcement that Washington is considering the formation of a joint U.S.-Lebanese-Iranian cell to monitor the ceasefire in Lebanon raises a simple but unavoidable question:
How on earth does the United States expect Iran to help disarm Hezbollah?
For more than four decades, Hezbollah has been Iran’s most important regional proxy. Tehran created the organization, trained its fighters, supplied its weapons, financed its operations, and integrated it into Iran’s broader regional strategy.
The Lebanese state and the United States both say their objective is to strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and extend the authority of the Lebanese Army and security forces across all Lebanese territory. President Joseph Aoun has repeatedly emphasized that the state alone must be responsible for preserving national sovereignty and making decisions of war and peace.
Those goals are entirely reasonable.
But they are fundamentally at odds with Iran’s long-standing objectives in Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s primary role was never “resistance,” as its leaders claim. Its most important function has been to advance Iranian influence in Lebanon and throughout the region. Through Hezbollah, Tehran acquired a powerful military and political instrument operating beyond its borders while maintaining plausible deniability.
Iran spent decades and billions of dollars building that influence.
Why would it now voluntarily dismantle it?
No serious strategist would expect a nation to willingly destroy one of its most valuable geopolitical assets. The United States would not do so. Russia would not do so. China would not do so. There is little reason to believe Iran would be any different.
Supporters of the proposal may argue that Iran seeks sanctions relief, international legitimacy, and regional stability. They may believe Tehran is prepared to transform Hezbollah from an armed movement into a purely political organization.
Perhaps.
But that assumption deserves careful scrutiny.
The entire purpose of Hezbollah from Iran’s perspective has been to provide leverage, deterrence, and influence. A Lebanon in which the Lebanese Army is the sole armed force would dramatically reduce that leverage. A fully sovereign Lebanese state capable of making independent decisions would limit Tehran’s ability to shape events on Israel’s northern border.
That is why many Lebanese are likely to view the proposed monitoring cell with skepticism.
Is its purpose to help Lebanon regain full sovereignty?
Or is it intended to negotiate the terms under which Iran preserves some of its influence while reducing tensions?
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Washington has advanced a proposal that appears detached from Lebanon’s political reality.
Not long ago, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack suggested that Syria’s new leadership could help manage Lebanon’s Hezbollah problem. President Trump later echoed similar thinking. Now Washington is proposing that Iran participate in a mechanism designed to oversee the implementation of arrangements aimed at strengthening Lebanese sovereignty.
Both ideas suffer from the same flaw.
They rely on outside powers whose interests do not necessarily align with Lebanon’s independence.
Syria dominated Lebanon for nearly three decades. Iran spent four decades building Hezbollah into its most successful regional proxy. Neither country has a history of placing Lebanon’s national interests ahead of its own strategic objectives.
If Washington truly wants to help Lebanon regain its sovereignty, the solution is far simpler.
Strengthen the Lebanese state.
Provide the Lebanese Army with the modern weapons, training, intelligence capabilities, and logistical support necessary to become the country’s unquestioned security authority. Help Lebanon secure its borders. Support its economy. Strengthen its institutions.
Most importantly, help Lebanon succeed in its negotiations with Israel.
President Aoun has outlined a vision based on restoring state authority, ending the cycle of war, and allowing Lebanon to focus on rebuilding its economy and institutions. That effort deserves strong American backing. Washington should use its influence to help secure a lasting settlement that ends hostilities, guarantees Lebanon’s sovereignty, and removes the excuses used by all sides to justify perpetual conflict.
The objective should not be to hand Lebanon’s future to Syria.
Nor should it be to place Iran in charge of solving a problem that Iran created.
The objective should be a sovereign Lebanon that can stand on its own feet.
For decades, Lebanon has paid the price for becoming an arena where regional powers compete for influence. The Lebanese people have watched their country become a battleground for wars and agendas that were never their own.
They have paid enough.
Lebanon does not need more Syrian involvement. It does not need more Iranian influence. It does not need new international mechanisms that substitute for state authority.
It needs one army, one government, one national decision-making authority, and lasting peace with its neighbors.
That is the path to sovereignty.
And that is the only path that will finally allow Lebanon to become Lebanon again.
