Possible Shift in Washington’s Approach Regarding Hezbollah’s Disarmament

Strategic Council Online – Note: Recent US movements in Lebanon indicate that Washington has likely distanced itself from the costly approach of disarming Hezbollah and has moved towards containing and managing its military capabilities.

Hamid Khoshayand – Regional Affairs Expert
Recent US moves in Lebanon, focused on normalizing relations between Beirut and Tel Aviv, indicate a noticeable strategic shift in Washington’s foreign policy towards this country. Despite some reports that interpret visits by officials like Tom Barak to the occupied territories as a final warning for Hezbollah’s disarmament and a prelude to the Zionist regime’s comprehensive assault on Lebanon, there is stronger evidence suggesting that the White House is receiving field and political assessments that deem disarming Hezbollah as impossible, and in the most optimistic scenario, far more costly and complicated than previously thought.
Even assuming the pursuit of the Zionist regime’s military attack option on Lebanon, the US’s frustration with completely disarming this group has recently become practically apparent. The central reason for this frustration is Hezbollah’s firm, inflexible positions, and simultaneously its deeply rooted power in Lebanon’s security equations, which renders any bold action to destroy it accompanied by an unbearable cost.
The new positions of senior Lebanese resistance officials, as well as statements from US and Zionist regime officials, clearly demonstrate the impossibility of realizing the project of disarming Hezbollah. Sheikh Naim Qasim, Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, in remarks recently delivered at the Fatemi Wahid meeting of Hezbollah’s Women’s Labor Union in Beirut, firmly declared: “If a war occurs, the enemy’s goals will never be achieved, and this is very clear to us. America must know that we will defend ourselves, even if the sky falls. Something called disarmament to achieve the goals of the Israeli regime will never be realized, even if the whole world goes to war against Lebanon.”
Mahmoud Qamati, a member of the political council of the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, also warned: “I warn about the patience of the resistance running out. Hezbollah will never abandon its weapons nor its role of resistance. If the resistance’s patience runs out, it will no longer negotiate with anyone. Hezbollah forces will remain like ghosts in southern Lebanon.”
It was after Sheikh Naim Qasim’s explicit remarks that Donald Trump, in his press conference at the White House, in response to a question about disarming Hezbollah and Hamas, merely stated: Hezbollah and Lebanon are a complex issue, and we must see what happens.
Tom Barak, Trump’s special envoy and the official in charge of the Hezbollah disarmament dossier, also emphasized: The idea of disarming Hezbollah by force is impossible, and we must ask ourselves how we can prevent Hezbollah from using its weapons. Michelle Isa, the new US ambassador, also, in response to a question about how to pressure Hezbollah to set aside its weapons, stated: “If disarmament is not possible, we will have to contain it.” Within the same framework, the Foreign Policy magazine, by publishing a report quoting a cabinet official of the Israeli regime, wrote: The idea of weakening or collecting the weapons of the Hezbollah movement is merely a fantasy and is not feasible.

Shift from Disarmament to Arms Containment: The New US Strategy
While the staunch positions of the Lebanese resistance indicate that military threats not only will not lead to Hezbollah’s disarmament but could result in a catastrophic conflict with unpredictable consequences for the aggressors. The statements of US and Zionist officials also testify to the fact that Washington and Tel Aviv have distanced themselves from their previous seriousness in advancing the policy of disarming Hezbollah and have reached a stage of uncertainty and retreat.
Based on this, it seems the US is shifting its strategy from disarmament, which entails a full-scale and damaging conflict with the Lebanese resistance, towards arms containment; meaning that in the new strategy, Washington seeks to limit Hezbollah’s missile capabilities and reduce the resistance’s sphere of influence in Lebanon through diplomatic tools, economic pressure, and creating deterrence.
The failure of the Hezbollah disarmament project is more apparent to the US today than ever before. Even in the event of a military attack, Hezbollah will fight to the last person. It will not submit to disarmament—a reality that the Lebanese resistance has stated at the highest level and explicitly. The US has also well understood that pressure for Hezbollah’s disarmament will be futile. Even if threats are realized, not only will the Lebanese resistance not surrender, but with the start of a new round of conflicts, US interests in the region could face severe damage, invalidating all of Trump’s so-called peace-seeking slogans. Therefore, the White House is trying to adapt to the existing situation and, by gradually and relatively honorably moving past the disarmament project, focus its efforts on two axes: first, the policy of preventing the use of weapons instead of disarmament, and second, reducing the level of conflicts between Lebanon and the Zionist regime and consequently advancing the process of normalizing relations between the two sides.