Follow us on social

google cta
Joseph Aoun, US military

Washington's man in Lebanon?

New president Gen. Joseph Aoun has a lot on his plate, including disarming Hezbollah in the south per a fragile ceasefire with Israel.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Lebanon finally has a president after a vacancy that has persisted for over two years.

The election of Lebanon’s army chief Joseph Aoun caps the rising role of the military following the ceasefire agreement reached between the country and Israel last November.

Appointed as commander of the armed forces in 2017, the 61-year-old led the Lebanese military’s operations against ISIS and Al-Nusra in the border areas with Syria. His emergence as the favored candidate owes largely to his military background, given the prominent role the army is set to assume under the ceasefire conditions.

These developments constitute an important victory for the United States, which has played a key role in the aftermath of the ceasefire deal. The United States had lobbied strongly for Aoun, as Washington has viewed the Lebanese military as its primary ally in the country. These efforts received a strong boost from ally Saudi Arabia, as senior Saudi officials held direct talks with Lebanese factions in Beirut just before the vote that led to Aoun's election.

With the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire, U.S. influence in Lebanon has risen considerably. The deal was brokered by the United States and includes the formation of an American-led five-member committee to oversee its implementation.

The ceasefire also stipulates that the Lebanese army is to deploy in territories stretching from the southern Lebanese border to south of the Litani river, and that Hezbollah must end its armed presence within this zone. As per the deal, Israel is also required to withdraw from southern Lebanese territories it occupied in the latest round of hostilities within 60 days.

Both sides have accused the other of violating the ceasefire, with Hezbollah telling the UN Security Council that Israel launched 816 ground and air attacks in the south from Nov. 27 when the deal was brokered and Dec. 22. Israel says Hezbollah broke the agreement hundreds of times, moving ammunition and launching rockets toward northern Israel.

The deployment of the Lebanese army in the south serves Washington’s long-standing goal of empowering this institution, which is a major regional partner. Bilateral cooperation extends into various realms including training, counterterrorism, and border security. Lebanon’s army is the world's fifth largest recipient of American military assistance, which amounts to around $3 billion since 2006, according to recent estimates.

According to the Associated Press, $95 million dollars of military aid originally earmarked for Egypt is now being diverted to Lebanon. Interestingly, news of this development came on the eve of Aoun’s election, signaling a firm commitment to empower the new president as he faces the major task of overseeing the troop deployment in the south.

It is worth noting that the increased aid to the Lebanese army has been met with disapproval by pro-Israeli voices in Washington that effectively argue that Lebanon’s military must go to battle against Hezbollah to prove itself worthy of this assistance.

Aoun has vowed to disarm Hezbollah in the south per the ceasefire agreement but pushing the Lebanese army to fight Hezbollah directly would have catastrophic repercussions, not the least for American interests. Despite being severely weakened by the Israeli onslaught, the Lebanese Shiite movement remains a capable fighting force that will pose a significant challenge to such endeavors.

More importantly, even should the Lebanese military build-up its fighting capabilities, adopting this approach will almost certainly lead to splits within its ranks given that the military is a multi-sectarian institution that includes Shiites, most of whom would revolt against any plans to resort to force against Hezbollah. This scenario would undermine the very institution which Washington sees as its main Lebanese partner, not to mention raise the specter of the country’s likely descent into chaos and potential civil war.

Should this happen, the U.S. would lose the important gains it has made in Lebanon, and the wider geopolitical benefits it has likely accrued in the process.

Instead, Washington should support an internal Lebanese dialogue to address the issue of Hezbollah’s arms.

In his swearing in speech Aoun appeared to indicate that this was the approach he intends to pursue.

“I will also work to confirm the state’s right to monopolize the carrying of weapons" he stated, further declaring that talks will be held to discuss a “complete defense strategy on diplomatic, economic, and military levels that enables the Lebanese state to remove the Israeli occupation [from the south] and deter its aggression."

Hezbollah officials, meanwhile, did not cast Aoun’s speech in a negative light.

“Did you hear him make reference to UNSC resolutions that call for the disarmament of Hezbollah” asked an official from the Lebanese Shiite movement in comments to RS.

Hezbollah — which was one of the many factions that ended up voting for Aoun — also appears ready to discuss its arms as part of the defense strategy called for by the new Lebanese president.

“What we ultimately want is for Lebanon to be capable of defending itself,” the Hezbollah official added. “If the Lebanese state comes to possess the capabilities to do this, we would be ready to step aside.”

Washington must also ensure Israel lives up to its part of the ceasefire deal and withdraws from south Lebanon by the time the agreement expires on January 26. Failure to do so will only undermine Aoun and the Lebanese military establishment and thereby America’s position in the process.

To its credit, Washington appears aware of this reality, as U.S. special envoy Amos Hochstein has reportedly pledged that Israel will complete its pull-out before the deadline.

Supporting the Lebanese army and by extension the new president also serves broader purposes within the wider realm of great power competition with rivals like China and Russia. Despite its tiny size, Lebanon is pivotal on the regional chessboard of the Middle East. It also occupies a strategic geopolitical position as the gateway between East and West.

Lebanon notably joined Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative in 2017, with China showing a keen interest in raising its profile in the country.

In a congressional testimony in late 2019, former American ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman warned that the United States must not lose interest in Lebanon, lest its influence in that country be curtailed by rivals like China and Russia.

These broader geopolitical dynamics, along with the desire to minimize the role of Hezbollah and Iran, go a long way in explaining why team Trump 2.0, too, has backed the Biden administration’s efforts in supporting Aoun.


Top photo credit: U.S. Army Gen Joseph L. Votel, then-commander United States Central Command, is greeted by Gen. Joseph Aoun, commander Lebanese Armed Forces, during his visit to Lebanon June 7, 2017. (Department of Defense photo by U.S. Air Force Tech Sgt. Dana Flamer)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.