By Mohammad Hammoud
The Legacy of Violence and Intervention
What can one truly expect from a nation whose history is marked by violence—born from the ashes of indigenous slaughter, built on the backs of enslaved souls, and forever scarred by nuclear devastation and endless foreign wars? Trouble is the only constant companion of the United States, whose interventions have repeatedly spiraled into chaos.
Now, in Lebanon, the specter of trouble manifesting from American influence looms once more. Morgan Ortagus, the US Deputy Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, brazenly demands the disarmament of Hezbollah and the normalization of relations with "Israel"—a call that could ignite the tinderbox of sectarian tensions. Is this not the same arrogance that has fueled past interventions, the same disregard for sovereignty cloaked in the guise of peace? If Ortagus's demands were to be met, a civil war in Lebanon would be inevitable. The question hangs heavy: Will the Lebanese government once again submit to US interests and engulf the country in civil conflict?
Morgan Ortagus: Champion of “Israel” Geopolitical Interests
Morgan Ortagus’s appointment as US Deputy Special Envoy for Middle East Peace underscores America’s long-standing tradition of imposing its geopolitical will on sovereign nations, often with destabilizing consequences. As a convert to Judaism after marrying a Jewish businessman, Ortagus has become a vocal advocate for "Israel."
Her career exemplifies this alignment, reflecting the revolving door between US diplomacy and unwavering support for "Israel." As a former State Department spokesperson under Mike Pompeo, she played a key role in advancing the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords, which normalized ties between "Israel" and Gulf states while sidelining Palestinian rights. Like many pro-“Israeli” politicians, Ortagus consistently frames "Israel's" security as synonymous with US interests, despite many independent American scholars debunking this claim.
Ortagus’s current mandate in the Middle East, particularly regarding Lebanon, involves advocating for the state of "Israel”, disarming Hezbollah—a group deeply embedded in Lebanon’s political and social fabric—and normalizing relations with "Israel”, a state that many Lebanese view as an archenemy and occupier.
During her April 2025 visit to Beirut, her demands for a “roadmap” to disarm Hezbollah, cut its funding, and dilute its electoral influence—framed as prerequisites for stability—reflect both the American administration's ignorance and arrogance. In essence, she is attempting to achieve through diplomacy what "Israel" could not accomplish through military means. This intervention not only aligns with “Israeli” interests but also mirrors a broader US foreign policy playbook that has fueled conflicts worldwide under the guise of promoting peace. However, these demands ignore Lebanon’s complex realities, tarnishing its sovereignty and risking the ignition of another civil war.
Lebanon: A Nation at the Crossroads of Foreign Influence
Lebanon’s political landscape is fragile; Hezbollah holds significant influence and popularity among the Lebanese people. As a legitimate political actor with seats in parliament and a grassroots base, Hezbollah supporters believe that the group's arms are essential for defending them against “Israeli” aggression and other terrorists in the Middle East. Forcing disarmament without addressing underlying grievances risks fracturing Lebanon’s delicate sectarian balance and plunging the country into civil strife.
By framing Hezbollah as a “terrorist” entity rather than a legitimate resistance movement, Ortagus disregards Lebanon’s sovereignty and the group's role in countering “Israeli” incursions. Despite pressure, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has firmly rejected US demands, stating that normalization with "Israel" is “not on the table” and emphasizing adherence to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions normalization on “Israeli” withdrawal from occupied territories.
US Interventionism: A Legacy of Destabilization
Ortagus's tactics are not an anomaly but a reflection of America’s entrenched habit of meddling in sovereign affairs. The United States has a well-documented history of interfering in other nations’ affairs, often under the guise of promoting democracy or combating “terrorism”. In reality, these interventions frequently serve US strategic interests at the expense of local populations. Key examples include:
Latin America:
Guatemala [1954]: The CIA orchestrated a coup against democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, resulting in decades of civil conflict. Chile [1973]: The US backed Augusto Pinochet’s violent overthrow of Salvador Allende, leading to a brutal dictatorship.
Nicaragua [1980s]: The Reagan administration illegally funded Contra rebels, destabilizing the Sandinista government and leading to a civil war.
The Middle East:
Iran [1953]: The CIA and British intelligence overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, resulting in decades of hostility.
Iraq [2003]: The invasion based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction led to catastrophic repercussions.
Syria [2011-Present]: US support for anti-Assad rebels has prolonged the civil war, creating a humanitarian disaster.
Asia:
Vietnam [1960s-1975]: US intervention resulted in millions of deaths and lasting devastation.
Afghanistan [2001-2021]: The US withdrawal led to the Taliban’s return, demonstrating the futility of nation-building through force.
These interventions share a common thread: the US acts not out of altruism but to secure resources or impose its political will. The consequences—failed states, refugee crises, and entrenched conflicts—are often ignored by policymakers.
The Hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy
What makes US interventionism particularly insidious is its selective application of moral principles. The US condemns Russian aggression in Ukraine while having invaded sovereign nations under false pretenses. It demands Lebanon disarm Hezbollah while providing billions in military aid to "Israel”, a nuclear-armed state occupying Palestinian land.
This double standard erodes global trust in American diplomacy. When figures like Ortagus pressure Lebanon to make concessions that could trigger internal strife, it reinforces the perception that the US prioritizes “Israeli” security over Lebanese sovereignty.
Conclusion: Toward a Policy of Restraint and Respect
Morgan Ortagus’s approach to Lebanon reflects broader trends within US foreign policy that prioritize dominance over stability. History shows that interventionism rarely achieves its stated goals; instead, it sows chaos and resentment. If the US genuinely seeks peace in the Middle East, it must stop dictating terms to other nations and support diplomatic solutions that respect regional dynamics.
Lebanon’s path to stability cannot be dictated by Washington or Tel Aviv; forcing disarmament or coercing normalization without addressing core grievances will deepen divisions further still. The United States must learn from past failures and adopt policies rooted in restraint and respect for sovereignty—not ideological crusades serving geopolitical interests alone. Until then, figures like Ortagus will be seen not as peacemakers but as enablers of perpetual conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment