U.S. Ambassador in Lebanon Promotes Internal Strife Against Hezbollah
In late October 2024, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Lisa Johnson, reportedly urged Lebanese politicians to mobilize efforts against Hezbollah. During a confidential meeting, Ambassador Johnson allegedly remarked, “Israel cannot achieve everything through war; it’s time for you to do your part and launch an internal uprising under the banner of ‘Enough.’” Johnson’s comments emphasized a strategic push to weaken Hezbollah internally, as the group engages with Israeli forces in an ongoing conflict. Additionally, Johnson urged Lebanese officials to confront Hezbollah and restore Lebanon to a political state resembling the era following Rafik Hariri’s assassination. By taking this stance, Johnson risks amplifying internal divisions in Lebanon, where sectarian tensions remain sensitive and historically volatile.
Johnson’s influence extends beyond rhetoric, as she has encouraged Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Joseph Aoun to consider a leadership role in Lebanon’s future, envisioning him as a pivotal figure against Hezbollah. Johnson reportedly suggested Aoun could “appoint a strong commander for the Lebanese Army, and we will support the Army in restraining all Hezbollah supporters.” According to a high-level Lebanese security source, Johnson’s allies have engaged in “mobilization operations” that stoke sectarian tensions, especially in areas now home to displaced Shia populations. Lebanon’s demographic includes Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Maronite), Muslims (Sunni and Shia), Druze, Palestinians, and Syrian refugees, all of whom make up a delicate, multi-religious social structure. Encouraging internal strife in a nation where a civil war from 1975 to 1990 claimed approximately 150,000 lives risks repeating a dark chapter in Lebanon’s history, with serious ramifications for stability.
Biden’s Senior Advisers Arrive in Israel Amid Ceasefire Discussions
In tandem with these developments, two senior advisers to President Biden, Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, arrived in Israel with the purported goal of negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. These advisers’ diplomatic initiative, if successful, could potentially reduce regional hostilities that have escalated since October 7. According to Axios, Hochstein’s role remains particularly significant, given that Israeli officials view him as a figure supportive of Israel’s aims. Israeli leaders convened with Hochstein to discuss strategies, and their meeting reflects Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s openness to addressing the conflict diplomatically. Although the White House has withheld official comments, officials within the Biden administration have stated that they intend to “follow up on a range of matters in the region.”
The timing of Hochstein and McGurk’s visit also coincides with diplomatic maneuvers, such as CIA Director Bill Burns’ engagements with Egyptian counterparts to address hostage releases and regional security. CENTCOM Commander General Erik Kurilla has likewise visited the Middle East, discussing defense and engaging with both Israeli counterparts and U.S. personnel. On the Lebanese side, Hezbollah appointed Naim Qassem, a longstanding deputy to former leader Hassan Nasrallah, to lead the organization in an apparent move to engage in ceasefire negotiations. This sequence of events reveals a complex blend of diplomatic activity, with the U.S. asserting influence while attempting to bridge divergent Israeli and Lebanese interests, even as Ambassador Johnson stirs local tensions in Lebanon.
Hochstein’s Allegiance Questioned Amid Calls for Ceasefire
Amos Hochstein, appointed as a U.S. envoy with Israeli roots and experience as a former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) tank crewman, faces scrutiny over his impartiality. Critics have raised concerns that Hochstein, who has represented U.S. interests in high-stakes regional negotiations, may prioritize Israeli objectives over American interests. Political analyst Ramzy Baroud questioned Hochstein’s loyalties, stating, “Hochstein’s loyalties are clearly on the side of Israel,” a sentiment that encapsulates the widespread skepticism surrounding his influence. Reports indicate that Hochstein privately reassured Israeli leaders of the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security strategy in Lebanon, despite President Biden’s public calls for restraint and de-escalation. By aligning his actions with Israel’s objectives, Hochstein’s role in the conflict shows concerns about the consistency of American diplomatic positions.
Hochstein’s presence and actions in Lebanon and Israel expose contradictions between the public U.S. stance and private assurances given to Israeli officials. While the Biden administration has publicly supported ceasefires and humanitarian aid, reports suggest that Hochstein has communicated privately with Israeli leaders, expressing full support for their ongoing military operations against Hezbollah. Politico’s coverage of Hochstein’s diplomatic approach further revealed his encouragement of Israeli forces to target Hezbollah, contradicting Biden’s diplomatic aims. This pattern in Hochstein’s role raises significant questions about the intentions behind U.S. diplomatic strategies in the Middle East and whether they align with genuine efforts to reduce tensions or favor Israeli goals.
U.S. Ambassador’s Actions in Lebanon Risk Renewed Sectarian Conflict
Ambassador Johnson’s recent influence over Lebanon’s political scene demonstrates a U.S. strategy that many interpret as fostering internal opposition against Hezbollah. Al-Akhbar reported that Johnson’s comments to Lebanese politicians included urging them to abandon fear, as “Hezbollah has been defeated, its leadership is destroyed, and we are with you, and the entire free world stands by your side.” Johnson’s statements suggest an encouragement of sectarian divides, particularly by urging politicians and leaders to oppose Hezbollah, disregarding the potential impact on Lebanon’s internal unity. According to Lebanese security sources, Johnson’s allies are actively involved in “incitement operations” that target Lebanese neighborhoods populated by displaced Shia communities. The potential for sectarian conflict in a historically fragmented nation like Lebanon remains high, especially with such pressures imposed by a foreign power.
Johnson’s directive for Lebanese forces and citizens to oppose Hezbollah could prove destabilizing, potentially sparking a resurgence of sectarian violence. Her calls for General Joseph Aoun to ascend politically, coupled with her drive to weaken Hezbollah’s ties to Lebanon’s Shia community, undermine Lebanon’s delicate social structure. By intensifying internal divisions and rallying specific factions, Johnson appears to disregard the history of conflict that has made Lebanon vulnerable to foreign influence and intervention. Such foreign influence, especially from a major diplomatic power, places Lebanon at greater risk of conflict, with Johnson’s interventions risking long-term harm to Lebanon’s political and social unity.
The Pattern of Diplomatic Manipulation Favoring Israeli Interests
The involvement of Amos Hochstein and other senior U.S. officials reveals a history of U.S. diplomatic actions aligning closely with Israeli interests in the region. Axios reported that Hochstein and others privately conveyed to Israel that “the U.S. would back their decision to ramp up military pressure,” despite Biden’s emphasis on mitigating civilian impact. An example of U.S.-Israel alignment occurred when Israel secured the THAAD missile defense system by promising restraint, a promise that quickly dissolved. Bloomberg noted that Israeli officials, upon acquiring THAAD, openly stated that they would act “based on our national interests,” bypassing U.S. expectations. These examples indicate a trend in U.S. diplomacy in which Israel’s strategic objectives outweigh publicly stated U.S. diplomatic goals, fueling skepticism over the motivations behind American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Hochstein’s diplomatic involvement shows how Israel has leveraged U.S. policy to enhance its own military agenda, using American support to further its objectives without binding commitments to U.S. terms. Axios highlighted Hochstein’s assurances that Israel could continue its military initiatives, reinforcing concerns over diplomatic consistency. Such actions demonstrate how U.S. diplomats, through private communications, can shift American policy focus to align with Israel, undercutting public claims of neutrality. This trend has raised doubts about whether U.S. foreign policy reflects independent strategic objectives or remains largely influenced by the demands of Tel Aviv, effectively sidelining American interests.
U.S. Diplomacy in Lebanon: A Question of Loyalties
The recent actions of U.S. Ambassador Lisa Johnson and U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein expose a disjointed diplomatic approach in Lebanon, raising questions about American objectives in the region. While Johnson promotes internal conflict within Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah, Hochstein’s assurances support Israel’s ongoing operations. The apparent disparity between Biden’s public calls for de-escalation and the actions of his senior diplomats highlight a troubling inconsistency within U.S. policy. As Lebanon grapples with political fragility, American diplomatic actions risk inflaming sectarian tensions rather than fostering stability.
