No constitutional trade-off for Hezbollah’s arms

Source: Nida Al Watan

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance's remarks directed at Lebanon's Christians were not merely a message of solidarity with a community in a turbulent Middle East. Rather, they appeared to constitute a highly significant political declaration, both in terms of timing and substance, carrying implications that extend beyond Lebanon's domestic affairs and reflecting an aspect of the U.S. vision for the next phase in Lebanon and the region.

In an interview on June 20 addressing the situation in Lebanon, Vance explicitly urged Lebanon's Christians to remain steadfast in their faith in Jesus Christ, stating: "Know that you have many friends in the U.S. government."

Vance did not stop there. He went on to identify what he considers the primary threat facing them, arguing that the core problem lies in Hezbollah, its weapons, and the state of continuous conflict with Israel that they have produced. In doing so, the U.S. official deliberately shifted the discussion from a purely military or security framework to a broader political one, linking Lebanon's stability and the future of its various communities to ending the phenomenon of weapons existing outside the authority of the state.

Sources familiar with the atmosphere within the U.S. administration believe that this message acquires additional significance in light of ongoing reports of regional and international discussions concerning Hezbollah's future role in Lebanon, alongside efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement of the region's outstanding issues. In this context, information obtained in recent months by Nida Al Watan indicated that Iran has sought broader political guarantees for Lebanon's Shiite community, whether through the institutionalization of new governing conventions or through constitutional and administrative amendments granting it a greater role in state governance, as part of any potential settlement regarding Hezbollah's weapons.

From this perspective, Vance's remarks can be interpreted as an indirect message to Tehran and its allies: while the United States may be prepared to discuss security and political arrangements addressing the issue of Hezbollah's weapons, it is not willing to redesign Lebanon's political system or alter the balances established by the Taif Agreement as part of the price for such a settlement. The particular emphasis on Christians, as well as on preserving stability and protecting Lebanon's diversity, implicitly rejects any approach that would upset the country's internal balance or institutionalize new constitutional realities imposed by military power.

This interpretation becomes even more compelling when viewed in the context of recent statements by U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly his references to new regional actors that could play a role in addressing the region's outstanding issues, including the Lebanese file. The U.S. administration appears to be seeking to establish a different equation based on strengthening the role of the Lebanese state and its legitimate institutions, curbing direct Iranian influence, and developing new security arrangements that would contribute to long-term stability.

Accordingly, Vance's message appears to be more than a simple reassurance to Lebanon's Christians. Rather, it serves as an indication of the type of settlement Washington envisions for Lebanon. According to the implications of his remarks, the U.S. objective is to resolve the issue of Hezbollah's weapons within the framework of the existing Lebanese state—not by altering the rules of the political system or granting any party additional constitutional gains in exchange for security concessions. It is, indirectly, a message defining the limits of acceptable negotiations and the boundaries of unacceptable change in post-war Lebanon.

This apparent U.S. approach also seems broadly consistent with the Vatican's position, which has drawn red lines around preserving Lebanon's diversity, the role of its Christian community, and the country's existing political balances. This was reflected in the visit of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV and in the shuttle diplomacy being conducted by the Apostolic Nuncio.

Will the poison that some parties are attempting to inject into Lebanon's political fabric ultimately succeed? And what price will ultimately be attached to Hezbollah's weapons in the coming phase? Only time will tell.