An American Military Endeavor —
Will It Be Achieved?
Lebanon at Its Most Dangerous Crossroads
Elissa El Hachem says Lebanon is in the most dangerous phase of its modern history — trapped between external occupation and internal occupation. Washington talks, but does the pressure of war now impose a military normalization that precedes political normalization?
Lebanon is in the most dangerous phase it has ever experienced in its modern history — caught between external occupation and internal occupation, with other scenarios looming. In a wide-ranging interview before the Pentagon meeting, journalist and political writer Elissa El Hachem reveals what the streets already sense but the political class refuses to say aloud.
The 29th round of negotiations at the Pentagon — running parallel to the third diplomatic meeting continuing the U.S. State Department track — has placed Lebanon at an intersection it cannot navigate by standing still. The question is no longer whether these tracks will converge. It is whether the Lebanese state will be present when they do.
The Pentagon meeting is qualitative in nature, El Hachem explains. It is designed to run parallel to the political track initiated by the U.S. State Department under direct presidential supervision — with Secretary Marco Rubio personally overseeing direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.
- The party waging war in Lebanon is not the same party negotiating in Washington. The negotiating delegation lacks the sovereign control to manage the actions of the Iranian-backed militia fighting on Lebanese soil. This is the primary structural contradiction.
- The two sides hold divergent objectives. Israel seeks long-term security arrangements and even peace, with its officials from Netanyahu down saying so openly. Lebanon’s delegation has not yet reached the level the Americans actually want — still anchored to conditions rather than outcomes.
“There were expectations that they would issue a joint declaration of intent. There were expectations of reaching a final ceasefire agreement,” El Hachem noted — but several days after the previous round ended, nothing materialized. The media’s active promotion of a different, more optimistic narrative, she argues, does not change the reality on the ground.
“We’re afraid to call things by their names. These are the terms that have created this monster that everyone is afraid of. Normalization means that three-quarters of the Lebanese people today are communicating with the Israeli people on all social media platforms. So we can’t lie anymore — not to the people, not to ourselves.” — Elissa El Hachem, Interview with Prof. Fadi Shahwan
The word “normalization” triggers alarm — but El Hachem refuses to let euphemism obscure the substance. If the Lebanese state claims it wants to impose sovereignty over all Lebanese territory, and if that is simultaneously what Israel says it demands, and if the American sponsor requires Lebanon to demonstrate the ability to control its territory and disarm illegal weapons — then one conclusion follows.
What makes this moment distinctly dangerous, El Hachem argues, is not just the external pressure — it is the vertical fracture within Lebanese society itself. The tension between the Lebanese is high. The division is sharp. And the gap between the street and its political and party leaderships regarding fateful choices is widening to a breaking point.
Hezbollah has made its position explicit: it does not recognize the state negotiating in Washington. It does not recognize the negotiating process, the President, the Prime Minister, or the entire government. “As a result,” El Hachem states plainly, “the window of opportunity for the Lebanese state is closing.”
“If the Lebanese state doesn’t fulfill its responsibilities, multinational forces will arrive under American auspices and with Israeli participation — and they will carry out the mission. The Israeli army has already reached Nabatieh. More than 70 villages have been completely destroyed. The Lebanese state is exposed, not acting, not doing anything.”
The Lebanese state, she observes, actually has taken positions — it classified Hezbollah’s military wing as illegitimate, issued resolutions on disarmament, warned against military activity. But the execution has been absent. “After 15 months given, and still couldn’t — and Hezbollah openly declaring that it does not recognize the state negotiating in Washington — the window is closing.”
El Hachem cautions against accepting the fiction that the Lebanon-Israel track can be cleanly separated from the Iran-U.S. negotiations in Islamabad. “On the ground, far removed from illusions and marketing campaigns, this issue is very organically linked to the negotiations taking place on the Pakistan track. Because the issue of Hezbollah is organically linked to the Iranian regime.”
“The conditions imposed by the United States and President Trump are like telling the Iranian regime: commit suicide, surrender, shoot yourself, and announce yourself the end of the regime. This is their conviction. It’s at the core of their ideology — and ideology is both defensive and offensive.” — Elissa El Hachem
Trump himself is not in an indefinite waiting position. Both sides — Washington and Tehran — are now in a position where action is necessary. “Whether from military pressure from the Pentagon or political pressure within the United States, including from the Republican Party and even Trump’s own supporters, he must make a decision. Time is running out. He must decide whether to sign an agreement — and that agreement will never be easy.”
The question is no longer whether Lebanon needs to choose. It is whether Lebanon’s leadership will make that choice — or whether the choice will be made for them, without them, and at their expense.
El Hachem’s assessment is unsparing: Lebanon is not in a position of weakness that prevents it from demanding full withdrawal and full sovereignty. It is in a position where those demands are precisely what is on the table — but only if the state demonstrates the credibility, the will, and the institutional capacity to act on them.
The gap between what Lebanon claims to want and what it is willing to do to get there — that gap is the crisis. And it is the gap that Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran are all watching.
Washington talks — does the pressure of war impose a military normalization that precedes political normalization?
The gap is widening between the street and its political and party leaderships regarding fateful choices. The tension is high between the Lebanese, and the division is sharp and vertical, calling for thinking of radical solutions.
Full interview available on YouTube: Watch: An American Military Endeavor — Will It Be Achieved? →
About The Author
Discover more from Faith & Freedom News - FFN
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
