Everyone following the formation of the new Lebanese government before it came into being on Saturday was eagerly awaiting the fate of the "political Shiism’s" Lebanese branch. Indeed, the status quo was upended by Israel's recent war on Hezbollah and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, which had been a linchpin offering strategic depth and a bridge to Iran. The outcome was a limited but deliberate attempt to appease it.
On Friday, the Lebanese heard a new tone from the US. Its diplomat gave a statement that sharply diverged from those that they had grown accustomed to. The blunt remarks that the newly appointed deputy envoy for the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, made in Beirut are a stark contrast to the smiles and refinement of her predecessor, the Democrat Amos Hochstein, especially during his meetings with parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the leader of the Amal Movement and the face of the "Shiite duo" that the US approves of.
However, in principle, there is no difference. Yesterday, today, and certainly tomorrow, Washington provides unwavering support for everything the Netanyahu government and its allies do.
Naive Arab and Muslim voters have woken up to this fact far too late. Driven by their outrage with the previous Democratic administration that supported the massacres and displacement in Gaza following the Al-Aqsa Flood, they cast votes for the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Worse still, they had somehow convinced themselves - for reasons I cannot comprehend - that Trump genuinely believed in peace and would take steps in that direction.
The reality is that there is no fundamental difference between Ortagus and Hochstein, just as there are no fundamental differences between Trump and Biden when it comes to Israel’s interests, first and foremost, and secondly, with regard to the broader US agenda in the Middle East. The only real distinction lies in their style and rhetoric.
That is to say that Hochstein was fully aware that Hezbollah had suffered a painful defeat in the recent war: losing its top brass, much of its capabilities, and its strongholds. Yet, in his meeting with Berri, Hochstein sought to reap the "fruits" of Israel’s achievements without appealing to the large segment of Lebanese society that has long opposed the hegemony of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement’s "political Shiism." He also rejected the triumphalism of Likud hardliners and the jubilation of extremist settler ideologues.
The kind of "soft" diplomacy we saw from Hochstein has been a hallmark of Washington’s Democratic administrations in recent years. However, this approach is seen as a sign of weakness by the Republican hawks. That has been the case since the days of Ronald Reagan and his evangelical "Moral Majority." They enthusiastically supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982; later, under George W. Bush, neoconservatives planned and executed the invasion of Iraq, only for Barack Obama to later hand Iraq over to Iran. Today, this trajectory continues under Trump and his MAGA movement.
As we well remember, Trump’s Republicans and the MAGA movement overturned many of the conciliatory policies pursued by Obama, and, after then by his successor and political shadow, Biden. Instead of betting on a "two-state solution," Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Rather than pursuing initiatives that explore regional peace, he undermined the foundations of these efforts by recognizing Syria’s Golan Heights as Israeli territory.
Even with regard to Iran, the Trump administration’s assassination of Qassem Soleimani was not part of a coherent and well-thought-out political strategy to put an end to Tehran’s blackmail across the Arab Levant. In fact, it emboldened the Iranian leadership to escalate, expanding its network of proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Logically, the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation would not have occurred without two key factors:
First, Tehran’s increased support for Hamas’s most radical faction, alongside the Islamic Jihad, in retaliation to Soleimani’s assassination.
Second, the Democrats’ "weakness" and "cowardice" in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu’s hubris and his policy of thwarting every opportunity for peace, despite several Arab regimes moving toward normalization.
Today, in his second term, Trump is committing one of the gravest mistakes a major power responsible for global security and peace could make. His heedless arrogance undermines international trust in the US, its respect for treaties, and its commitment to political norms and international law. This is especially true as it continues to push for the displacement of Gaza’s population and for opening the Strip up for investment!
This precedent does not merely violate Palestinians’ rights. He is waging an assault on all principles of civilized conduct and the global order. This is starkly evident from the economic blackmail and pressure campaigns Washington is currently waging against Canada, Mexico, Denmark, Colombia and others.
Amid this "nightmare," the world cannot be assured that there is a rational actor who can prevent humanity from sliding into disaster.
Returning to the smaller Lebanese context. If the average Lebanese citizen hesitates to openly express their relief at the removal of illegitimate sectarian armed hegemony - because it was achieved by an "Israeli cure" just as lethal as the "Iranian disease" - then every rational person in the world must ask whether the notion of protecting the weak and restraining the powerful maintains any political and moral legitimacy.
Hezbollah’s leaders know that their party has lost its war with Israel. However, they continue to deny their defeat for fear that their own community could hold them accountable for recklessly endangering their youths, livelihoods and future.
Other Lebanese are also aware of this fact. However, they do not want to appear to have benefited from the catastrophe that their enemy had brought upon their homeland as a whole.
As for Washington, whose envoy Ortagus openly expressed her satisfaction with what happened, it might ("for its own reasons") hesitate to fully capitalize on the defeat of "political Shiism" in Lebanon and Syria.
Of course, we understand that the Trump administration, alongside its ally Netanyahu, has other regional considerations. Indeed, they are equally hostile toward "political Sunnism" in the region, especially since Arab countries would not have normalized relations with Israel without the looming threat and blackmail of the "Iranian bogeyman."
