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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

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.