Lebanon’s stability requires steadier US engagement

Means but no end

War is the continuation of politics by other means, as the Prussian general and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz once said. But in today's Middle East, war is often conducted with no clear view of the desired political outcome or end goal. This is particularly true when it comes to Lebanon and US policy towards it—a policy that essentially has focused on letting Israeli military actions take the lead. 

A strategic risk of Israel's war in Lebanon is that it undermines an already fragile state and produces conditions for another civil war, creating a "Mogadishu on the Mediterranean," as two years of war in Gaza ultimately produced. External actors have already undercut state stability in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Attacking the Iranian regime without a strategy only increases the risks of a failed state that is home to more than 90 million people. 

Steady, strategic US diplomatic engagement is a key ingredient—and it is missing. In the second Trump administration, the top US policy on Lebanon is to disarm Hezbollah. The US-Israeli war against Iran's capacities to threaten and undermine regional stability is linked to this policy goal in Lebanon. 

Beyond Hezbollah's disarmament, the US hopes to help the Lebanese state restore sovereignty and create a pathway to peaceful relations with its neighbours. To this end, the US has doubled down on its decades-long investment in the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), assisting with coordination. In addition, the US Treasury Department is cracking down on the black-market economy used by Hezbollah and other adversaries misusing Lebanon's financial system.  

Tools and attention

Congress has given the Trump administration the tools and a framework to tackle Hezbollah. The 2026 National Defence Authorisation Act, which was passed, provided funding for the LAF and set conditions for measuring progress on disarming Hezbollah and countering other groups that threaten the security of Lebanon and its neighbours. But a steady, coherent strategic diplomatic engagement by the US is still missing, and this is hampering policy implementation.   

Some of the challenges witnessed elsewhere in US President Donald Trump's second term—a lack of sufficient diplomatic personnel empowered to coordinate the various tools of US policy, an overreliance on a small group of individuals close to the president, unexplained personnel changes, and a systematic gutting of America's 'soft power' tools it traditionally used to shape the landscape in other countries—are a key challenge in US policy in Lebanon, too  

US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa is a go-to person on the country, but his responsibilities as ambassador limit his ability to deal with other key aspects needed to tackle this challenge at a time of conflict. The same can be said about US Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack, who acts as special envoy in several key countries of the region. His role in Lebanon has received mixed reviews from key Lebanese constituencies needed to win the diplomatic and political battle there.  

Furthermore, the US State Department still lacks a Senate-confirmed senior diplomat in charge of the broader Middle East more than a year into the second Trump administration. It is also missing a 'diplomatic quarterback'—someone senior who has the ear of the president, links to key actors in the US government, links to regional actors, and who is focused exclusively on Lebanon.  

Ways to support

Last year, the current Lebanese government began to take unprecedented steps towards disarming Hezbollah and countering Iranian influence in the country, but it did not move as quickly as the US and Israel had hoped and expected, so Israel continued to strike Hezbollah targets and maintained a presence inside of Lebanon. Hezbollah's decision to attack Israel after Israel and the US attacked Iran on 28 February further incentivised Israel to move towards a war footing and launch a new phase of the military campaign in Lebanon.  

What is built, rather than what is destroyed, is what matters in the long run. The US needs to step up its strategic diplomatic engagement on Lebanon to support the country's courageous political leaders willing to risk their lives to take on Hezbollah. Disarming the group is not just a security or military exercise; it is a political exercise to finally remove a 'state within a state' whose corrupt thugs murder opponents.  

US strategic diplomatic engagement on Lebanon also means setting the table for direct talks between Lebanon and Israel. The aim would be to safeguard Lebanon's sovereignty and prevent another years-long Israeli occupation. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have courageously spoken of the need for this. The US can help if it dedicates its time, attention, and diplomatic heft.  

US strategic diplomacy on Lebanon is a necessary component of the broader war against the Iranian regime, which for decades used Lebanon as a pawn in its own game of power and influence—but the time for that game to come to an end is now. Military operations alone—whether in Lebanon or Iran—are insufficient to set the framework for peace and stability in the region.

The essential missing ingredient is a political vision for what must be built after so much death and destruction. To get there requires an investment in strategic diplomacy that strengthens America's partners in the region—especially the Lebanese people and those in the new government willing and able to stand up to the thugs and bullies in Hezbollah and its backers in Tehran.