Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Middle East
Elbridge Colby
Top image credit: Elbridge Colby is seen at Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings to examine his nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Dirksen Senate office building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA).

Elbridge Colby: I won't be 'cavalier' with U.S. forces

QiOSK

In his senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Elbridge Colby, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stood out as one of the few people auditioning for a Pentagon job who say they may want to deploy fewer U.S. troops across the globe, not more.

“If we’re going to put American forces into action, we’re gonna have a clear goal. It’s going to have a clear exit strategy when plausible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Ukraine aid freeze: Trump's diplomatic tightrope path to peace

Europe

Transatlanticism’s sternest critics all too often fail to reckon with the paradox that this ideology has commanded fervent devotion since the mid-20th century not because it correctly reflects the substance of U.S.-European relations or U.S. grand strategy but precisely because it exists in a permanent state of unreality.

We were told that America’s alliances have “never been stronger” even as the Ukraine war stretched them to a breaking point. Meanwhile, Europeans gladly, if not jubilantly, accepted the fact that Europe has been rendered poorer and less safe than at any time since the end of WWII as the price of “stopping Putin,” telling themselves and their American counterparts that Russia’s military or economic collapse is just around the corner if only we keep the war going for one more year, month, week, or day.

keep readingShow less
Nigerian soldier Boko Haram
Top Image Credit: A Nigerien soldier walks out of a house that residents say a Boko Haram militant had forcefully seized and occupied in Damasak March 24, 2015 (Reuters/Joe Penny)

Nigeria’s war on Boko Haram has more than a USAID problem

Africa

Insinuations by a U.S. member of Congress that American taxpayers’ money may have been used to fund terrorist groups around the world, including Boko Haram, have prompted Nigeria’s federal lawmakers to order a probe into the activities of USAID in the country’s North East.

Despite assurances by the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, who said in a statement that “there was no evidence that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, was funding Boko Haram or any terrorist group in Nigeria,” Nigeria’s lawmakers appear intent on investigating.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.