BEIRUT — Lebanon is grappling with an unprecedented political and diplomatic offensive targeting its highest institutions: the presidency and the army.

The latest flashpoint emerged when Lebanese Army Commander General Rudolph Heikal cancelled his scheduled visit to the United States. 

Key meetings with senior U.S. military officials, congressional leaders, and diplomats were abruptly scrapped, prompting Heikal to cancel the entire trip in protest—a rare and bold assertion of Lebanese sovereignty.

The cancellations followed an orchestrated campaign in Washington. U.S. senators and political operatives criticized Heikal for publicly describing the Israeli occupation entity as “the enemy” and refusing to blame Hezbollah in the army’s statements.

Senators Lindsey Graham and Joni Ernst attacked both the army and President Joseph Aoun, portraying Lebanon’s military as weak and ineffective for not giving priority to disarm Hezbollah. 

The message was unambiguous: Lebanon’s institutions must follow foreign dictates—or risk external interference, including possible Israeli military action.

At home, factions aligned to Lebanese Forces (LF) have long cultivated influence in U.S. policy circles, lobbying to present Hezbollah as Lebanon’s main obstacle while undermining state authority.

Under President Aoun, these efforts shifted toward the presidency and army, framing Lebanon’s leadership as obstacles to foreign agendas rather than sovereign decision-makers. This internal-external nexus amplifies pressure on Lebanon’s institutions, misrepresenting prudence and measured governance as weakness.

President Aoun has consistently rejected internal strife, insisting that crises be resolved through dialogue rather than confrontation. 

Yet LF-aligned factions and U.S.-connected operatives have misrepresented this caution, seeking to portray Lebanon as incapable of self-governance without foreign oversight. 

This mirrors the political isolation of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri. He has been sidelined for refusing to inflame internal tensions, a pattern now threatening both Aoun and Heikal.

The stakes are existential. There is a question whether Aoun will follow the example of former President Émile Lahoud, who oversaw Lebanon’s liberation in May 2000 and famously refused to compromise the Resistance?

Lahoud declared: “Our advice to some fools who have forgotten or ignored what happened at that time: ask former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whom I hung up on after telling her I would never give up an inch of my country’s land.”

Those “fools” Lahoud referenced are precisely the LF and other domestic actors driven by foreign agendas to foment confrontation at Lebanon’s expense. Aoun’s measured resistance echoes this legacy: unwilling to cede Lebanon’s sovereignty even under intense pressure.

General Heikal remains at the crossroads of constitutional duty and foreign coercion. By maintaining neutrality vis-à-vis Hezbollah and insisting on operational integrity against the Israeli enemy, he drew American ire. U.S. officials demand that the army abandon neutrality and act as a proxy against the Resistance, a strategy that risks internal conflict and provides Israel with a pretext for incursions. 

Washington’s exploitation of the Lebanese Army is methodical: canceled meetings, delayed visits, and political pressure are used to undermine credibility and portray the army as incapable. Even French mediation over the Syrian-Lebanese border, framed as technical, is leveraged to weaken state authority.

Reports from Washington claim that Heikal’s statement has escalated into a broader debate over U.S. military aid. The issue has reportedly reached Secretary of State Marco Rubio, placing Lebanon’s army cooperation and funding directly under scrutiny. 

Any discourse that challenges the U.S.-Israeli narrative, particularly on Hezbollah, now carries immediate diplomatic consequences, demonstrating how Lebanon’s institutions are being weaponized under the guise of “support.”

In this high-stakes geopolitical environment, Lebanon’s army and presidency are caught in an imbroglio: defend national sovereignty or appease foreign powers. Their refusal to act as instruments of external agendas is increasingly framed as failure, threatening institutional integrity and the very principle of sovereign decision-making. 

Just as Hariri was isolated for refusing to inflame internal tensions, President Aoun and General Heikal now face a coordinated foreign-backed campaign of coercion and intimidation. Lebanon’s independence, legitimacy, and capacity for self-governance hang in the balance.