BEIRUT—Since the outbreak of Israel’s ongoing aggression in Lebanon and West Asia in general, the U.S. government has stepped up its role as the region’s chief instigator, rather than a neutral mediator.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qasem articulated this reality when he declared, “The United States is not an impartial arbiter, but rather the main sponsor of aggression.”
In a recent speech at the launch of Souq al-Di 2025, Hezbollah leaders asserted that intimidation will not change the principles of the resistance and that “any new agreement will only be an impunity for Israel.”
His stance was a direct response to renewed Western pressure to impose a so-called “new understanding” aimed at easing tensions on Tel Aviv while limiting Lebanon’s right to resistance.
This position stands in sharp contrast to the bold statements of U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who justified the Israeli attack by claiming that “disarming Hezbollah would have prevented escalation,” and even claimed that cooperation between the Lebanese army and resistance was “hindering efforts to help Lebanon.”
Graham’s statement distills the essence of American thinking toward Lebanon: unconditional support for Israel, contempt for Lebanon’s sovereignty, and a complete reversal of the role of mediator to that of provocateur.
While the U.S. government openly preaches “détente,” the U.S. military and intelligence agencies continue to work in tandem with Israel.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) maintains direct coordination with the Israeli military, effectively turning Lebanon’s southern border into a field testing ground for U.S. strategy.
A recent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 67% of Israelis believe military operations in Gaza are decided by the US, and 69% believe their country is currently operating under US leadership. This is a surprising admission that Tel Aviv’s sovereignty is subordinated to Washington’s orders.
Alliances extend far beyond the battlefield!
The U.S. embassy in Beirut serves as a surveillance hub and regularly accuses Hezbollah of “state sabotage,” even as the U.S. government itself suffocates Lebanon with sanctions, a financial blockade, and restrictions that prevent Lebanon from making any meaningful economic recovery.
Its logic is one of domination rather than partnership, an attempt at pacification rather than stabilization, revealing the insidious hypocrisy behind Washington’s rhetoric about “peace and stability.”
A recent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 67% of Israelis believe that military operations in Gaza are decided by the US, and 69% believe that their country is currently operating under US direction.
In his latest speech, Sheikh Qasem expanded the meaning of resistance to include what he called “developmental jihad.”
Support for local agriculture, production and small-scale industry has become a form of resistance as important as the “rifle” under siege.
For Hezbollah’s supreme leader, the economy of resistance is a means of sovereignty, ensuring that the country’s dignity does not starve into submission.
Equally important was President Joseph Aoun’s instruction to the Lebanese army to respond to the Israeli invasion. Sheikh Qassem described the act as a historic moment of unity between the state and the resistance forces.
Mr. Qassem stressed that the defense of sovereignty is first and foremost a state’s duty, and called for a national plan to strengthen the military’s capabilities.
This synergy brings to mind the words of the late Imam Musa al-Sadr in the 1970s, long before the birth of Hezbollah: “Resistance is born out of state coercion, not its replacement.”
Today, resistance is defending its land and nations are legislating their sovereignty. Together they represent Lebanon’s first line of defense.
A study by the Union Research and Development Center found that despite a formal ceasefire, a secret understanding between the United States and Israel has effectively given Tel Aviv freedom to operate in Lebanon.
Under the pretext of “protecting joint infrastructure projects,” the U.S. government aims to expand what it calls the “Trump Economic Zone,” which stretches from the Galilee to south of the Litani River, a project that redraws southern Lebanon under Israeli security control.
In this connection, Sheikh Qasem’s following warning resonates: “The new understanding of condoning Israeli aggression is an abdication of sovereignty.”
Between Senator Graham’s justification for war and Sheikh Qassem’s defense of independence, Lebanon stands at a critical crossroads: submit to the logic of American and Israeli control, or adhere to the principles of deterrence that have sustained the country’s existence for decades.
Ultimately, Washington’s insidious game exposes a strategy to dismantle Lebanon’s model of resistance and rebuild the balance of power in the region under Israeli hegemony.
Against this background, Sheikh Naim Qasem’s vision offers a counter-narrative of a holistic struggle that combines defense, development and dignity, an unwavering assertion that Lebanon’s sovereignty is neither negotiable nor for sale.