SOUTH LEBANON — The growing controversy surrounding Hamat Air Base has ignited urgent questions about sovereignty, transparency, and Lebanon’s potential entanglement in a broader regional war.

Officially, the base is owned by the Lebanese Armed Forces and is situated in northern Lebanon.

Publicly, American presence there has long been framed as limited to training Lebanese army units and providing logistical support, including the transfer of equipment to and from the U.S. surveillance den (embassy) in Beirut. 

Yet recent incidents have cast doubt on the narrowness of that mandate.
According to a February 19 report in An-Nahar newspaper, tensions erupted after U.S. forces stationed at Hamat closed surrounding roads following suspicion that a drone had fallen in the vicinity.

The arbitrary closure reportedly prevented residents from reaching their homes.

Nicola Ayoub, the mayor cited in the article, acknowledged that armed American personnel blocked access routes and that Lebanese soldiers themselves expressed surprise, noting that such movements typically require coordination with the Lebanese army.

The mayor further describes that he was forcibly removed from the area and treated roughly.

Days later, the justification offered was that newly arrived troops — recently transferred from Iraq — had acted out of heightened security concerns. 

In the same report, the mayor claimed that relations with American forces at Hamat had generally been positive and stable.

This duality — cooperation on paper, friction on the ground — fuels deeper suspicions:

-If the base were strictly limited to training missions, why would foreign forces independently impose security perimeters and restrict civilian movement? 
-Why would logistical transfers reportedly occur beyond the scrutiny of Lebanese state oversight?
It is worth noting that the nature of the “equipment” transported between the base and the so-called U.S. embassy remains unclear!
In a region defined by proxy wars and strategic rivalries, ambiguity itself becomes politically charged. 

Strategically, Hamat’s coastal location on the Mediterranean enhances its significance.

Northern Lebanon lies within operational proximity to key regional military hubs: Cyprus, bases in occupied Palestine, Jordan, and Turkey.

In the context of escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran, analysts have speculated that any accessible Mediterranean platform could serve as logistical or intelligence support infrastructure in a potential campaign.

While no official confirmation exists that Hamat would be used in such a scenario, its geographic positioning and the scale of American engagement inevitably invite scrutiny.

Meanwhile, concerns are amplified by parallel reports regarding American presence at Riyaq Air Base in the Bekaa Valley — notably near areas recently targeted by the Israeli enemy, resulting in dozens of martyrs and wounded.

The overlap between foreign military footprints and conflict zones deepens public anxiety about Lebanon’s vulnerability to external agendas.

Historical memory adds another layer. During the U.S.–led Israeli war (September–November, 2024), the arrest of Imad Amhaz in Batroun — a coastal region near Hamat — raised questions about maritime surveillance and potential intelligence coordination.

Whether or not direct involvement can be proven, the perception of foreign operational awareness in sensitive security events contributes to a broader narrative: that decision-making authority over Lebanese territory may not lie exclusively in Lebanese hands.

This perception extends beyond the military sphere; critics argue that Washington exercises disproportionate political leverage in Lebanon, from influencing presidential and governmental formations to imposing financial restrictions and shaping monetary policy.

Allegations have even circulated about potential American pressure regarding the timing of the May 2026 parliamentary elections.

Such claims, whether substantiated or not, reflect a climate of mistrust and a widespread belief among segments of the population that Lebanon operates under a form of indirect American tutelage.

The core question remains:
-Who ultimately commands operations at Hamat?
-What agreements define the scope and size of the American contingent?
-How many personnel are stationed there, and under what legal framework do they operate?

Transparency is crucial; in the absence of clear public accountability, speculation flourishes. Lebanon’s fragile sovereignty has long been tested by regional conflict and external intervention.

If Hamat is indeed limited to training and logistical cooperation, the Lebanese government must articulate that mandate clearly and assert oversight.

If, however, the base is evolving into a node within a wider strategic network aimed at confrontation with Iran, then Lebanon risks becoming a frontline state in a war not of its choosing.

At stake is more than a single airfield. It is the principle of national decision-making, and whether Lebanese territory can be insulated from being transformed into a launchpad in the next regional conflagration.