Exclusive – Will New US Sanctions Target Hezbollah’s Top Lebanese Allies?

Lebanese PM Saad Hariri meets US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. (Dalati & Nohra)
Lebanese PM Saad Hariri meets US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. (Dalati & Nohra)
TT
20

Exclusive – Will New US Sanctions Target Hezbollah’s Top Lebanese Allies?

Lebanese PM Saad Hariri meets US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. (Dalati & Nohra)
Lebanese PM Saad Hariri meets US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. (Dalati & Nohra)

“I am not the one who decides US sanctions against Hezbollah. The US administration is clear in how to handle this issue.”

This is how Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri responded to all criticism against his recent visit to the United States. The criticism was mainly from Free Patriotic Movement MPs and their allies over the premier’s talks with American officials who are perceived as spearheading sanctions against Hezbollah. Most notable of those officials are Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the United States Department of the Treasury Marshall Billingslea.

Former Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Antoine Chedid told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hariri’s visit was significant given the meetings he held with various officials, specifically Pompeo and senior Treasury officials and World Bank President David Malpass.

The visit was deemed a success, said Chedid, after Pompeo stressed the need to preserve the stability of Lebanon’s economic and security institutions despite his clear objectives to impose sanctions against Hezbollah. The official’s remarks reveal that Hariri “succeeded in separating the Lebanese state, its security and political institutions, and the banking sector from Hezbollah. This is no easy feat.”

The former envoy added that US sanctions against Iran and Hezbollah are being discussed on a daily basis by the Washington administration and they are not swayed by opinions or dictates.

Close allies

It is also no secret in Lebanon that new sanctions could target top allies to Hezbollah. A senior banking official told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US Treasury may sanction FPM members. He added, however that this is yet to be confirmed. He also said Billingslea has accused FPM chief and Lebanese Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil of exploiting his position to protect Hezbollah.

Moreover, the US official expressed concern that Lebanese banks may shirk their obligations to comply with the sanctions, especially those located in areas where Hezbollah wields influence.

Repercussions of sanctions

Economic researcher and strategist, Professor Jassem Ajaka that speculation has been rife about the new wave of sanctions, but it is “certain” that they will include top Lebanese officials who are Hezbollah members and their allies. They will also target businessmen, whom Washington believes hold the keys to the party’s financial dealings.

This will pave the way to two scenarios, said Ajaka.

The first sees senior politicians being targeted. An American administration official had previously said that politicians in Lebanon hold the vast majority of the country’s wealth, so in order to impose any policy change, one must slap sanctions on them. Indeed, Washington had taken a step in that direction by blacklisting earlier this year two lawmakers. Lebanon will be confronted with a major hurdle, however, when the US blacklists a minister, making it impossible for the government to work with him.

Officials in Washington themselves are conflicted over whether to take this route, said Ajaka. Sanctioning top Lebanese figures will escalate the confrontation between Beirut and Washington. It also undermines the significance the US has placed on Lebanon in its Middle East strategy. Some American officials speculate that senior Lebanese politicians are deliberately escalating their rhetoric to force Washington into a confrontation, which is why Ajaka ruled out this scenario at the moment.

The second scenario, he remarked, sees imposing sanctions on lower ranked politicians or figures who work in the shadows and who are members of Hezbollah and its allied parties. These figures control the finances of their parties. According to the American view, this strategy targets Hezbollah’s allies more than the party itself with the aim of driving a wedge between them.

The economic and financial impact will be the same in either scenario, remarked Ajaka. They will both hamper the financing of the CEDRE pledges. They may not find any financers at all if the US believes that these parties would benefit from them. Washington could choose to pressure the dollar bonds market, which in turn will lead to popular disgruntlement against these parties and consequently affect the results of the next parliamentary elections.

It appears that Lebanon is heading towards financial and economic ruin, should the US so decide, transforming it into another Iran, Syria or Venezuela.

Hariri visited the US after obtaining information that dozens of Lebanese officials will be targeted by sanctions. The premier is concerned that ministers in his cabinet may be among them, which may lead to the collapse of the government. It appears, however, that the Americans have given him “temporary” assurances that this will not take place.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.