Follow us on social


Why is the US increasing aid to the Lebanese army?

A focus on combatting Hezbollah is bound to backfire.

Analysis | Middle East

As much of the world focused its attention on the recent flare up in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Biden administration quietly announced a $15 million increase in the annual aid package for the Lebanese army.

Such steps could potentially serve to maintain a minimal level of security in Lebanon and prevent further U.S. entrenchment in the Middle East. At the same time increasing aid to the Lebanese army could serve to preserve a level of American influence in Lebanon as rival countries attempt to step up their role.

However, statements made by U.S. officials against the Lebanese Hezbollah pose the question as to whether this increased aid has more to do with an anti-Hezbollah agenda. 

Washington’s security concerns in Lebanon

Interestingly the announcement of increased aid to the Lebanese army coincided with a letter from House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Gregory Meeks and a handful of Democratic lawmakers to Secretary of State Antony Blinken stating that supporting Lebanon has now become a security imperative, even going as far as to warn that further deterioration in the country had the potential to pose a threat to U.S. national security.

It also warned of the degradation of the Lebanese army as a result of the economic crisis that has engulfed the country, and thereby emphasized the need to increase assistance to the army.

The Democratic lawmakers argued that such a step was necessary to prevent “non state armed groups like Hezbollah and other militias” from benefitting from the situation.

It is the “other militias” that could come to pose a real national security threat of the kind alluded to by the Democratic lawmakers.

With an unprecedented economic crisis that has seen the local currency plummet to record low levels and the absence of a fully functional government for nearly 10 months — not to mention COVID-19 and the port blast — Lebanon is the perfect breeding ground for “other militias,” for example Wahhabi inspired terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida that thrive in such environments.

It is worth noting that while Lebanon has not been a victim of Wahhabi-inspired attacks at the scale seen in countries like Syria and Iraq, it is by no means a stranger to this form of terror.

The Lebanese army itself fought a months-long battle against the al-Qaida inspired Fateh Al-Islam group in 2007 with both sides suffering heavy casualties before the terrorists were finally defeated.

Al-Qaida also established a branch for itself in Lebanon under the name ‘Abdullah Azzam Brigades” in 2009.

This group claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing that targeted the Iranian Embassy in Beirut in November 2013, and for an attack on the Iranian Cultural Centre in Beirut in February 2014.

At the same time, an estimated 900 Lebanese foreign fighters joined the ranks of ISIS and other Wahhabi inspired terror groups in Syria.

The arrest of 18 ISIS members in a Lebanese border town with Syria by the Lebanese army in February earlier this year came as an ominous warning that Wahhabi inspired terrorists continue to pose a threat to the country and may seek to take advantage of its deteriorating situation.

Viewed against this backdrop, increasing assistance to the Lebanese army — which is viewed as a symbol of stability in the country — seems like a prudent step on the part of the Biden administration that will serve to prevent Lebanon from sliding into an intractable conflict similar to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The big question however is whether Washington is increasing its assistance to prevent such a scenario or whether it has something else in mind: namely to target Hezbollah.

During a panel hosted by the Middle East Institute on Lebanese-American security and defense ties, Pentagon officials appeared to focus on Hezbollah as the main security threat.

“Hezbollah’s terrorist and illicit activities threaten Lebanon’s security, stability and sovereignty” remarked deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East Dana Stroul 

Given such statements and the fact that Washington has a long record in attempting to weaken Hezbollah, one cannot rule out the possibility that the increased aid to the Lebanese army is part of plan to use this army against Hezbollah (if not now then sometime in the future)

Preserving American influence in Lebanon

The Biden administration’s intention of sending more military aid appears to contrast with the Trump administration’s approach of dealing with Lebanon as more like an Iranian aligned enemy.

As an institution which has traditionally been known to be an American ally, shoring up ties with the army serves to guarantee Washington a minimal level of influence in the country.

Interestingly, the Biden administration has taken this step at a time where superpower rivals like Russia are attempting to raise their profile in Lebanon.

A Hezbollah delegation visited Moscow last March and held a publicized meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during which the two sides discussed the situation in Lebanon including the need to form a government.

Meanwhile Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri held talks with senior Russian officials in Moscow in April.

Meeks’ letter also recommended establishing an international “Friends of Lebanon” group that would include countries like France.

Coordinating with France would indeed serve to preserve American influence in Lebanon, not least because the French maintain contacts with Hezbollah, by the far the most powerful and influential player in the country.

Again, however this would apply only if one were to assume that there is no anti-Hezbollah hidden agenda.

An American policy fixated on the demonization of Hezbollah would not serve the goal of the United States being an influential player in Lebanon. The Shiite movement is by far the strongest player in the country and its exclusion or even marginalization has proven impossible.

If Washington does indeed intend to coordinate with France on the Lebanese file it would do well to heed the advice of French president Emmanuel Macron and adopt a more realist approach that recognizes Hezbollah for the influential player it is.

What a suitable realist approach would look like

While increasing aid to the Lebanese army will not solve Lebanon’s problems, it does represent a step in the right direction provided that it’s not aimed against Hezbollah.

Preoccupation with the Shiite group would only serve to strengthen “other militias” that pose a much bigger danger to American interests. It could even be argued that Washington and Hezbollah share a common interest in preventing the rise of Wahhabi-inspired terror groups in the country.

A prudent realist approach would be for Washington to assist the Lebanese army to prevent the rise of the Wahhabi terrorist threat in any way possible, including collaboration between the army and Hezbollah. Such a scenario it not completely unthinkable and did in fact happen when the ISIS threat was at its peak in 2014.

Pursuing such a policy would help the United States avoid being sucked into another crisis in the Middle East and at the same time allow it to remain a relevant player in one of the region’s most pivotal countries.

Image: Bumble Dee via
Analysis | Middle East
A U.S. Special Forces Soldier demonstrates a kneeling firing position before a live fire range, March 6, 2017 at Camp Zagre, Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso Soldiers also practiced firing in seated position, standing position, and practiced turning and firing. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Britany Slessman 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) Multimedia Illustrator/released)
A U.S. Special Forces Soldier demonstrates a kneeling firing position before a live fire range, March 6, 2017 at Camp Zagre, Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso Soldiers also practiced firing in seated position, standing position, and practiced turning and firing. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Britany Slessman 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) Multimedia Illustrator/released)

Time to terminate US counter-terrorism programs in Africa


Every so often I am reminded of how counter-productive US engagement in the world has become. Of how, after miserable failure after failure, this country’s foreign policy makers keep trying to run the globe and fail again. From the strategic defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan to the feckless effort to sway the excessive Israeli military operation in Gaza, the US has squandered its power, exceeded its capabilities, and just plain failed.

My reminder was a recent New York Times piece lamenting the failure of US efforts to keep terrorists out of the Islamic areas of West Africa.

keep readingShow less
What South Africa's new unity gov't means for US relations

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa and deputy president Paul Mashatile attend a special African National Congress (ANC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting in Cape Town, South Africa June 13, 2024. REUTERS/Nic Bothma

What South Africa's new unity gov't means for US relations


On May 29, South Africans went to the polls in one of this year’s most anticipated elections. In an outcome that shook the country’s political system, the ruling African National Congress (ANC), which has governed South Africa since Nelson Mandela became the country’s president following the fall of apartheid, lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since taking power in 1994.

As a result, the ANC has been forced to form a coalition with rival parties. It has forged a political alliance with the center-right, pro-business Democratic Alliance (DA) party, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the right-wing Patriotic Alliance (PA), and a small party called GOOD, which holds a single seat in parliament. Collectively, this coalition, which could still grow as the ANC continues to negotiate with other parties to expand its unity government, accounts for 68% of the seats in the country’s national parliament, which convenes in Cape Town. Leaning on its newly formed coalition, the ANC successfully reelected Cyril Ramaphosa as the country’s president on June 14.

keep readingShow less
How the 'war on terror' made the US Institute for Peace a sideshow

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the launch of the U.S.-Afghan Consultative Mechanism with Special Envoy for Afghan Women, Girls, and Human Rights Rina Amiri, at the U.S. Institute of Peace, in Washington, U.S., July 28, 2022. Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS

How the 'war on terror' made the US Institute for Peace a sideshow

Global Crises

This year the United States Institute of Peace is 40 years old, and most Americans and U.S. government officials have little to no awareness that Congress funds an institute of peace or understand what it does.

This lack of awareness about USIP and its anniversary this year reflects a larger problem in U.S. foreign policy: the U.S. government’s strained relationship with peacemaking.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis