1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. Washington Sends Warning with Cancellation of LAF Chief’s Trip

U.S. military and diplomatic support will not continue indefinitely if Beirut cannot progress on Hezbollah's disarmament.

Washington's abrupt cancellation of Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) chief General Rodolphe Haykal's planned visit earlier this week signals deepening U.S. dissatisfaction with both Lebanon's approach to Hezbollah's disarmament and the LAF’s public stances on ongoing Israeli border incursions.

Haykal, appointed to his post in March, was poised for his first official visit to Washington on Tuesday to discuss U.S.-Lebanese military cooperation, border security, and efforts to bring all weapons in Lebanon under state control—a euphemism for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Over the past two decades, the U.S. has invested more than $3 billion in Lebanon's army, aiming to reinforce Beirut's sovereignty against non-state actors, principally Hezbollah.

However, the visit was canceled at the eleventh hour following a Lebanese army statement on Sunday that condemned Israeli attacks and labeled Israel as Lebanon's "enemy" after Israeli troops opened fire near UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon.

For Washington, the wording crossed a red line: it was interpreted as Lebanon's military leadership siding with Hezbollah's narrative, declining to confront the group's provocations, and—in the process—choosing to fight Israel at a moment when American priorities favored de-escalation and collaboration with Tel Aviv.

The response on Capitol Hill was swift and unequivocal, with Senators Lindsey Graham and Joni Ernst taking to social media to rebuke Haykal. Graham said the Lebanese army statement was a “giant setback for efforts to move Lebanon forward,” while Ernst emphasized that the LAF should work toward disarmament rather than amplifying anti-Israel rhetoric.

The criticisms underscore the gravity with which Washington views the Lebanese army's role in implementing UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, both of which enshrine the goal of disarming Hezbollah and reinforcing state authority across Lebanon's territory.

A Tone-Deaf Move in Diplomatic Context

While Washington’s objectives in Lebanon include disarming Hezbollah, building a strong state, and ensuring the LAF fulfills its international and constitutional obligations, Lebanon has lacked the “courage” to confront Hezbollah, and its army has not moved decisively against the group, according to Claremont McKenna College political scientist Hicham Bou Nassif.

"The U.S. has been patient for some time, but now they are fed up,” Bou Nassif told This is Beirut.

Recent events, including Haykal's reported suggestion to halt disarmament efforts south of the Litani River and Beirut’s habit of blaming Israel for Lebanon’s stalled disarmament agenda—while ignoring Hezbollah’s role—have only deepened American skepticism.

Washington seeks tangible actions, not rhetorical feints, the Claremont McKenna College professor explained. If Lebanon's army cannot demonstrate the willingness to act—by directly instructing its commander to implement disarmament—then Lebanon risks remaining in permanent crisis, he added.

Former U.S. military officers and Lebanon observers agree. Haykal's actions were not merely a breach of protocol but reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of Washington’s interests.

One source described the LAF’s statement as “tone-deaf,” arguing that its rhetoric—commonplace in Lebanese political discourse—is unacceptable within the framework of high-level diplomacy. The statement's timing, coinciding with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's important visit to Washington, made the misstep especially glaring, according to the source.

This episode adds to earlier frustrations over Haykal's readiness for strategic leadership, reinforcing Washington’s doubts about the army's capacity—and willingness—to navigate a fraught regional landscape.

Lebanese parliamentarian Fouad Makhzoumi told This is Beirut that he is concerned about a potentially widening rift between Beirut and Washington, warning that these ties are vital for Lebanon’s security and economic and political stability.

Makhzoumi called on Lebanon's leadership to reaffirm its commitment to Resolution 1701, ensure that all arms are under state authority, and make credible, public progress in this direction.

Such calls reflect the awareness, among both Lebanese officials and U.S. policymakers, that the military relationship has been pivotal to Lebanon's resilience. The prospect of eroding this relationship—especially at a time when American aid remains essential for the army's operations—underscores the urgency of restoring confidence and addressing Washington's core demands.

Disarmament: Still the Essential Test

Beneath the diplomatic fallout lies the LAF’s halting progress on disarming Hezbollah amid Washington’s increasing pressure, with U.S. officials warning that Lebanon’s future hinges on swift action. If Beirut falters, Israel may adopt unilateral measures to counter it—according to these officials—with potentially dire consequences for stability.

Nor is this simply an issue of Washington's leverage. U.S. officials recognize the complexity of Lebanon's internal politics, the entrenched position of Hezbollah, and the LAF's limited room for maneuver. Yet the expectation—now translated into "conditionality for continued cooperation"—is clear: only demonstrable steps toward disarmament will secure ongoing support.

The cancellation of Haykal's visit should be read as a visible warning, not a final rupture. For Washington, the message is stark: U.S. military and diplomatic support will not continue indefinitely if Beirut cannot muster progress on Hezbollah's disarmament and manage border tensions with Israel in line with American expectations.

For Lebanon—and the LAF—the choice ahead is existential. Continued ambiguity or indecision risks not only alienating powerful international allies but also perpetuating Lebanon's entanglement in proxy conflict and state paralysis.

In the months ahead, U.S.-Lebanese cooperation will rest on whether Lebanon can fulfill its obligations, confront entrenched interests, and demonstrate the transparency and resolve needed for genuine state authority. The window for action may quickly be narrowing.