BEIRUT — U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham made a clear statement when he said, “It is not possible for the Middle East to be normalized until Hezbollah is taken off the table.”

He added, “A Middle East with Hezbollah cannot be normal because Hezbollah is a fanatical, religious terrorist group with American blood on its hands and it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.” 

In a pos on X on Sept. 30, Graham said, “If you want normalization, disarm Hezbollah one way or another.”

This statement is more than a temporary stance; it is a direct American recognition of a central truth: that Hezbollah remains the greatest obstacle to the “comprehensive normalization” project, and that talk of its “defeat” is nothing more than flimsy media propaganda.

It is noteworthy that Graham attempted to present his speech as a political wish linked to Trump’s recent plan for Gaza, but the essence of his words goes beyond that.  

At a moment when some Western and Israeli media outlets are claiming that Hezbollah has lost many of its capabilities or is in a weak defensive position, the US senator’s words come to completely contradict this narrative: If Hezbollah were truly defeated, the condition of disarming it would not have been considered the major obstacle to any “normal Middle East.”

On a practical level, Graham’s statement exposes America’s contradiction. On the one hand, Washington insists that the party has “lost” or “broken” in the recent confrontations, while on the other, it continually employs rhetoric that considers it the central obstacle to redrawing the map of the region.

In this sense, what Graham sees as an “obstacle” is in fact a sign of strength, an indication that the party’s role in political and military equations remains effective and influential across the entire region.

While Graham believes that the condition for “normalcy” in the region is the disarmament of Hezbollah, facts on the ground prove that Washington itself is behaving abnormally through its direct intervention and continued violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

Between December 12, 2023, and September 28, 2025, American MQ-9 Reaper reconnaissance drones flew dozens of times over Lebanese territory, sometimes daily for up to 18 hours at a time.

These drones not only photographed, but also collected communications, intercepted messages, decrypted them, and could launch direct strikes with Hellfire 3 missiles. 

On many occasions, three drones were recorded flying simultaneously over the South, the Bekaa, and Greater Beirut, in operational coordination with Israeli and French aircraft. This constitutes a complete violation of Lebanese airspace sovereignty.

More seriously, these missions are classified and secret, and the Lebanese civil aviation authorities know nothing about their routes or altitudes.

This has exposed the country to three near-certain disasters that almost occurred as a result of cross-paths with civilian aircraft. Nevertheless, Washington sees no reason to justify its daily interference.  It is simply engaging in a systematic violation of Lebanese airspace, while simultaneously providing direct intelligence support to Israel since the launch of Operation Protective Edge in 2023.

In the broader context, Graham’s speech recalls what Francis Fukuyama promoted following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991: the “end of history” and the triumph of the American liberal model.

At the time, the Soviet collapse became an opportunity to create a “consciousness of defeat,” and the idea that resisting Washington had become futile was promoted. However, history did not end. 

Instead, Russia, China, and others returned to challenge American hegemony, and regional resistance movements such as Hezbollah emerged to break the logic of surrender and keep the door open to balance.

Today, attempts to create a “consciousness of defeat” are repeated by promoting the idea that the Axis of Resistance lost in Syria, that Hezbollah has been exhausted in the south, and that the only path to “normalcy” is normalization with Israel and acceptance of its terms. 

But Graham’s own words belie this interpretation: If Hezbollah were truly merely a defeated remnant, Washington would not have needed to make its disarmament a condition for normalization, nor would it have deployed entire airborne intelligence systems to monitor it around the clock.

Thus, Lindsey Graham’s statement does not demonstrate Hezbollah’s weakness, but rather its strength. It reveals an American-Israeli fear that no regional project will be implemented without neutralizing this force, implicitly acknowledging that it remains present, influential, and effective.

In other words, Hezbollah may face losses or challenges, but it has not been defeated and will not be defeated, because it has become an integral part of the deterrence and balanced equations in the region.

Any rhetoric that speaks of a “normal Middle East without it” is nothing more than an indirect declaration that its presence is what prevents the alleged American-Israeli “normality.”

The senator’s statements intersect with a popular and political reality that is completely different from what Washington and Tel Aviv desire: His demands to disarm Hezbollah come at a time when popular support for the resistance is tangibly increasing—evident in the massive funerals of resistance leaders and the filling of stadiums and squares for occasions of mourning and support, particularly the massive gatherings witnessed for farewell and loyalty ceremonies that extended to thousands and hundreds of thousands of participants.

These popular demonstrations were not merely symbolic; they translated into sweeping victories for the “Stability and Loyalty” lists in the South, the Bekaa, and strategic towns in the 2025 municipal elections. 

Besides, this reaffirmed the Axis of Resistance’s presence in local governance and at the ballot box.  

On the other hand, political pressure is emerging from internal parties and forces affiliated with the Israeli project or politically funded by external allies.
These anti–resistance forces are exploiting the post-war media euphoria to attempt to amend the electoral law, weakening the resistance forces’ ability to convert popular support into a parliamentary majority or institutional influence. 

Attempts to introduce urgent amendments or controversial electoral issues (such as the redistribution of expatriate seats or changing representation mechanisms) are currently being advanced by groups known for their opposition to the resistance, within the context of a political struggle aimed at breaking popular momentum following the mass demonstrations. 

Local and foreign reports have indicated that some parties are seeking to push through electoral changes in favour of the anti–Resistance team.
Amid this situation, a Western diplomatic and military pressure machine is mobilizing—including aerial surveillance, intensive intelligence missions conducted by drones, and regional monitoring systems—to provide informational and political cover for decision-makers who view the disarmament of the resistance as a gateway to normalization.  

However, Graham’s public insistence on linking “normalization” to disarmament reveals his clear bias toward Israel’s positions and his inclination toward using military options or a “Plan B” should political and diplomatic pressure fail, as documented in statements made by him and by US lawmakers. 

This accumulation of external and internal pressures politically aims to transform popular victories into tactics to weaken the political structure of the resistance. However, it also reflects a recognition of its residual standing and symbolic and political power on the Lebanese street.

All pressure—whether through the exploitation of laws or through information and air coercion—come in response to genuine popular power and are not evidence of defeat. On the contrary, this pressure is an implicit recognition that Hezbollah remains an effective force in local and regional equations.