Key Washington meetings with LAF Commander

Recent meetings between United States senior figures and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) Commander General Rodolphe Haykal underscored the evolving nature of defense cooperation between Washington and Beirut.

The discussions reaffirmed longstanding military ties and shared security priorities while exposing persistent political sensitivities, particularly concerning Hezbollah and Lebanon’s fragile internal balance. The meetings came amid renewed diplomatic engagement, ongoing regional tensions, and growing scrutiny over the future of US military assistance to Lebanon.

Haykal’s Washington engagements

General Haykal’s visit to Washington included a wide range of security, intelligence, and legislative meetings extending beyond traditional military diplomacy. Sources familiar with the discussions described them as constructive, noting that US military officials showed professional understanding of the Lebanese army’s approach to addressing weapons held by non-state actors.

During the visit, Haykal met officials responsible for counterterrorism financing and cross-border threat monitoring, reflecting Washington’s growing focus on intelligence coordination and financial oversight. He also held discussions at the Pentagon, the National Security Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and United States Central Command (CENTCOM), reinforcing direct military coordination. Meetings with members of Congress from both parties further reflected bipartisan American interest in Lebanon’s security and institutional stability.

The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons remains central to Lebanese-American defense relations. Haykal detailed the army’s expansion across frontline villages, noting that full implementation remains hindered by Israel’s continued presence in several strategic positions. He also outlined the second phase of the military plan north of the Litani River, highlighting its sensitivity and the army’s efforts to avoid confrontation with civilians or Hezbollah. Haykal further stressed that resolving the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons requires a gradual national process rather than a purely military solution. He argued that progress depends on political consensus, operational capacity, and sufficient time. He thus warned that direct military confrontation with Hezbollah could risk internal conflict and potentially destabilize the Lebanese army, posing a serious threat to national stability.

In addition, General Caine’s meeting with General Haykal formed part of a series of high-level discussions aimed at reinforcing US defense partnerships across the Middle East. According to US Joint Staff spokesman Joseph Holstead, the talks emphasized the importance of enduring military relationships with regional allies. Although operational details were limited, the discussions reflected Washington’s continued commitment to supporting the LAF, which the US considers a cornerstone of Lebanon’s stability and sovereignty.

US support for the Lebanese army has historically included training, equipment, and logistical assistance designed to enhance operational effectiveness and reinforce state authority in a country facing multiple security challenges.

Military assistance and operational constraints

Sources close to the visit indicated that Haykal returned from Washington satisfied with the outcomes, describing the discussions as largely positive. His meetings concluded with talks involving senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, Massad Boulos, and Senator Lindsey Graham, focusing on the future of US military assistance.

American officials reportedly signaled their willingness to maintain support for the Lebanese army while linking continued assistance to measurable progress in expanding state control over weapons north of the Litani River. Haykal reaffirmed his commitment to implementing decisions taken by Lebanon’s executive authority but emphasized that the army cannot independently impose political solutions.

He highlighted 2 primary challenges facing the military:

- First, he pointed to limited readiness and insufficient resources, stressing that the army cannot assume expanded nationwide responsibilities without additional personnel, equipment, and financial support.

- Second, he noted complex political and field realities. Haykal stated that Israel’s continued military presence in parts of southern Lebanon and repeated ceasefire violations hinder the army’s ability to fully extend state authority. He also warned that unresolved internal political disputes could trigger instability if not addressed through national agreements.

Moreover, Haykal rejected claims suggesting cooperation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah. Instead, he described practical coordination mechanisms that facilitated the army’s deployment south of the Litani River while avoiding direct confrontation and preserving stability.

Political friction and congressional criticism

Despite generally positive meetings, Haykal’s visit was overshadowed by public criticism from Senator Lindsey Graham. The senator stated that he ended a brief meeting after Haykal declined to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization within Lebanon’s domestic context. Graham reiterated Washington’s designation of Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997 and questioned the reliability of the Lebanese army as a security partner.

However, sources accompanying the visit downplayed the dispute, describing Graham’s reaction as exaggerated and unlikely to influence broader military cooperation. They stressed that Haykal encountered considerable understanding among US military officials and that his visit primarily focused on operational military needs rather than political disagreements.

In conclusion, the meetings that General Rodolphe Haykal conducted illustrate both the strength and complexity of US-Lebanese defense relations. While military cooperation remains solid, political disagreements and regional security challenges continue to shape bilateral engagement. As Lebanon confronts internal security pressures and ongoing regional tensions, the LAF remain essential to maintaining national stability. The future of US assistance will likely depend on Lebanon’s ability to balance domestic political realities, strengthen military capabilities, and achieve gradual progress toward consolidating state authority over armed groups.