Washington escalates rhetoric against "Hezbollah," accusing it of obstructing de-escalation and threatening Lebanon's reconstruction efforts

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Erikat – 25/5/2026

The correspondent for Al-Quds newspaper learned via an email received on Monday from a senior American official at the US State Department, who requested anonymity, that Washington holds "Hezbollah" fully responsible for the ongoing military escalation on the Lebanese-Israeli border. It believes that the party is undermining opportunities for de-escalation and ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, at a time when regional and international communications are intensifying to prevent the situation from sliding into a wider confrontation.

The American official stated, in a briefing provided "on a background not directly attributable," that "Hezbollah has repeatedly ignored requests for a ceasefire with Israel, including a recent ultimatum directed at it," adding that "Israel will never be asked to passively absorb attacks on its forces and civilians, and this is not the Biden administration's era."

The official pointed out that since April 17, the party has launched more than a thousand drones and over 700 rockets, "in an attempt to obstruct ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel," considering that "the current situation is no longer sustainable."

In a clear escalation in American rhetoric towards the party, the official said that "Hezbollah bears full responsibility for the current situation after violating the ceasefire on March 2, and it is now seeking to deprive the Lebanese people of the opportunity for peace and reconstruction."

He added that the party views any negotiation path led by the Lebanese state as an "existential threat," because the success of the Lebanese government in reaching a ceasefire with American support "will strip Hezbollah of its power and its narrative based on resistance."

These statements come at a highly sensitive regional moment, where the war in Gaza intersects with the open confrontation in southern Lebanon, while American and Western pressure on the Lebanese government is increasing to control the borders and implement security understandings that prevent the expansion of the war.

Observers believe that the language used in the American stance reflects a significant shift compared to American rhetoric in past years. Washington today appears more willing to fully adopt the Israeli narrative and link any prospect of economic aid and reconstruction in Lebanon to weakening Hezbollah's political and military influence.

The statements also reveal a clear American bet on the role of the Lebanese state in any future settlement, in contrast to an attempt to isolate the party internally and portray it as an obstacle to stability. However, this bet clashes with a highly complex Lebanese reality, where "Hezbollah" still enjoys a wide political, popular, and military presence, in addition to being considered by a segment of Lebanese as a fundamental deterrent force against Israel.

The American message reflects a strategic shift in Washington's approach to the Lebanese file. The American administration is no longer just talking about containing the escalation, but has directly linked Lebanon's economic and political future to reducing Hezbollah's role. This shift means that any aid or reconstruction projects may become conditional on redrawing internal Lebanese balances. However, this approach carries significant risks, because excessive external pressure on the Lebanese structure may lead to counterproductive results and reinforce the party's narrative that the United States and Israel are seeking to impose political realities by force and economic blackmail.

In contrast, the American narrative ignores a fundamental aspect of the scene, which is that the Lebanese-Israeli border has been in a state of continuous escalation since the outbreak of the Gaza war, and a large part of Arab and Lebanese public opinion sees Hezbollah's actions as an extension of a broader regional battle related to defending Palestinians. Therefore, reducing the crisis to the responsibility of the party alone does not express the complexities of reality, but rather seems closer to a complete adoption of the Israeli security vision. Moreover, talk of "peace and reconstruction" loses much of its credibility in light of the continued massive destruction in Gaza and open American military and political support for Israel.

The most important question remains related to the ability of the Lebanese state itself to play the role Washington desires. Lebanon is experiencing one of its deepest economic and political crises, and its institutions suffer from weakness and sharp division, while political forces seem unable to produce a unified national vision towards war and peace. In light of this reality, any attempt to isolate "Hezbollah" by political or economic force may push the country towards further internal division. What is required in Lebanon, according to many observers, is not only to avoid war, but also to build a national consensus that protects Lebanese sovereignty and prevents the country from becoming an arena for regional and international score-settling.