BEIRUT—Since the outbreak of the ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon and West Asia at large, Washington has entrenched its role as the region’s primary instigator, not a neutral mediator. 

Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem articulated this reality clearly when he declared, “America is not an impartial mediator; rather, it is the primary sponsor of the aggression.”

In his recent address at the launch of Souq Ardi 2025, the Hezbollah chief affirmed that intimidation would not alter the resistance’s principles and that “any new agreement is merely an exoneration of Israel.” 

His stances were a direct response to renewed Western pressure to impose so-called “new understandings” aimed at easing the strain on Tel Aviv while restricting Lebanon’s right to resist.

This position contrasted sharply with the bold statements of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who rushed to justify Israeli raids by arguing that “disarming Hezbollah would have prevented escalation,” and even claimed that cooperation between the Lebanese army and the resistance “hinders efforts to help Lebanon.” 

Graham’s statement distilled the essence of the American mindset toward Lebanon—unconditional support for Israel, contempt for Lebanese sovereignty, and a complete inversion of the mediator’s role into that of a provocateur.

While Washington publicly preaches “de-escalation,” its military and intelligence apparatus continue to operate in lockstep with Israel.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) maintains direct coordination with the Israeli army, effectively transforming Lebanon’s southern border into a field laboratory for American strategy. 

A recent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 67 percent of Israelis believe the United States determines military operations in Gaza, and 69 percent think their country now operates under American tutelage—an astonishing admission that Tel Aviv’s sovereignty is subordinate to Washington’s dictates.

The alignment extends far beyond the battlefield!

The U.S. embassy in Beirut, functioning as a surveillance hub, routinely accuses Hezbollah of “obstructing the state,” even as Washington itself suffocates Lebanon through sanctions, financial blockades, and restrictions that deny the country any meaningful economic recovery. 

The logic is not one of partnership but of domination—an attempt to subdue rather than to stabilize, revealing the insidious hypocrisy behind Washington’s discourse on “peace and stability.”

A recent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 67 percent of Israelis believe the U.S. determines military operations in Gaza, and 69 percent think their country now operates under American direction.
In his latest speech, Sheikh Qassem expanded the meaning of resistance to encompass what he called “developmental jihad.”

Support for local agriculture, production, and small industries has become, under siege, a form of resistance equal in importance to the “rifle”. 

For the Hezbollah chief, the resistance economy is an instrument of sovereignty, ensuring that the country’s dignity cannot be starved into submission.

Equally significant was President Joseph Aoun’s directive for the Lebanese army to respond to Israeli incursions—an act Sheikh Qassem described as a historic moment of alignment between the state and the resistance. 

Qassem emphasized that the defense of sovereignty is first and foremost a state duty, calling for a national plan to enhance the army’s capacity.

This synergy recalls late Imam Musa al-Sadr’s words in the 1970s, long before the birth of Hezbollah, who said: “The resistance was born from the state’s hortcomings, not to replace it.”

Today, the resistance protects the land, while the state legislates sovereignty; together they embody Lebanon’s first line of defence.

According to a study by the Union Centre for Research and Development, a secret U.S.–Israeli understanding effectively grants Tel Aviv operational freedom in Lebanon despite the formal ceasefire.

Under the guise of “protecting joint infrastructure projects,” Washington seeks to expand what it calls the “Trump Economic Zone,” stretching from Galilee to south of the Litani River—a project that redraws southern Lebanon under Israeli security dominance.

In this context, Sheikh Qassem’s warning reverberates: “Any new understanding that absolves Israel of its aggression is a surrender of sovereignty.” 

Between Senator Graham’s justification of war and Sheikh Qassem’s defense of independence, Lebanon stands at a defining crossroads—either submission to the American-Israeli logic of control or steadfast adherence to the deterrence doctrine that has preserved its existence for decades.

Ultimately, Washington’s insidious game exposes a strategy to dismantle the Lebanese resistance model and reshape the regional balance of power under Israeli supremacy.

Against this backdrop, Sheikh Naim Qassem’s vision provides the counter-narrative: a holistic struggle that merges defense, development, and dignity—an unwavering assertion that Lebanon’s sovereignty is neither negotiable nor for sale.