AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The role of the Lebanese army in America's strategy to confront Hezbollah was the most important axis of the recent round of military negotiations held at the headquarters of the US Central Command in the city of "Tampa" in the state of "Florida" in America. These talks ended without achieving tangible progress, but once again brought the issue of American pressures on Lebanon's military institution and the extent of its command's readiness to participate in security measures against Hezbollah back to the forefront of attention. Measures that may pave the way for an internal confrontation in Lebanon.
According to a report by the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, information indicates that the command of the Lebanese army would have preferred not to participate in the round of direct military negotiations with the Zionist enemy. This position was formed based on a prior assessment according to which the high level of demands of the Zionist regime eliminates the possibility of achieving a real opening. From this perspective, entering into negotiations in circumstances where the military attacks of the Zionist regime continue and there are no clear commitments regarding withdrawal can confront the Lebanese army with obligations that go beyond the nature of its missions and executive capacity.
According to available information, the decision to participate in these negotiations was taken following Washington's pressures on Lebanese political officials. Officials who in turn forced the command of the Lebanese army to send a military delegation to the city of Tampa despite doubts about the usefulness of this round of negotiations.
This account is also consistent with reports from Hebrew media that spoke of America's insistence on holding the meetings even despite low expectations about achieving a result.
In this context, the command of the Lebanese army had tried to persuade "Joseph Aoun," the President of this country, to have "Simon Karam," the head of the negotiating delegation, join the meeting in order to prevent direct communication with Zionist military personnel. However, Aoun informed the command of the Lebanese army that the Americans had opposed this proposal.
In contrast, the media coverage of the negotiations by the Zionist regime showed that Tel Aviv continues to insist on its demands regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah and conditions any further withdrawal from Lebanese soil on the verification of the implementation of its desired security arrangements.
According to reports published in the Zionist regime, the differences were not limited to the order of implementation of the stages of withdrawal and disarmament but also encompassed the mechanisms for evaluating the performance of the Lebanese army. At the same time, there has been talk of the Zionist regime's desire to establish direct channels of operational coordination with Lebanon's military institution, channels that will operate beyond the existing frameworks and American mediation.
These demands are of particular sensitivity in circumstances where there is a difference between Lebanon's view and the Zionist regime regarding the nature of the next phase. Lebanese officials demand the cessation of the Zionist regime's operations and the withdrawal of this regime from their country's soil, but the Zionist enemy still considers military occupation a lever tied to the extent of progress in disarming Hezbollah.
On this basis, the absence of tangible results in the Tampa meetings is consistent with the cautious assessments previously attributed to the command of the Lebanese army. Of course, this issue does not necessarily mean the end of the negotiation process. Especially since it cannot be considered merely the result of the complete subordination of Beirut's political structure to American demands.
The importance of the Tampa negotiations is not limited to their direct results; because American pressures raise serious questions about the type of relationship that Washington wants to establish between Lebanon's political structure and military institution.
From the perspective of currents opposed to American policy, Washington seeks to force the command of the Lebanese army to adhere to the orientations of the political structure in security and negotiation files. This is in circumstances where this very political structure is continuously under American pressure to accelerate the implementation of demands related to Hezbollah's weapons.
However, the issue is not merely that the military institution must follow the decisions of civilian power. A principle that is considered among the fundamental foundations of running a state. The main problem is whether Lebanon's political structure itself has the ability to make independent decisions. Decisions that take into account the country's internal conditions and are not merely responsive to foreign demands, especially when these decisions are accompanied by risks to internal stability.
The importance of this discussion has increased with the publication of reports and information about American pressures to dismiss "Rudolf Heikal," the commander of the Lebanese army. These pressures have been raised following the dispute over the speed of implementation of measures related to disarming Hezbollah.
At the same time, some Lebanese political and media figures have also taken critical positions against the performance of this country's army command and have called for more decisive implementation of the political structure's decisions. These positions indicate the intensification of differences over the necessary methods for implementing the policy of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the government and the extent of the army's readiness to resort to force inside the country.
According to information that has reached some official institutions, over the past 48 hours, something resembling a directive has been issued by the American and Saudi embassies. After that, a number of Lebanese activists began criticizing this country's army and accused this institution of not implementing the government's decision regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah.
Pressures related to military negotiations have taken place simultaneously with the increase in American attention to security, judicial, and political files inside Lebanon. The latest case is the so-called "explosives truck" case; a case that has become the axis of a political and media dispute about Hezbollah's connection to the shipment, its purpose, and the manner in which Lebanese institutions deal with this issue.
Meanwhile, American pressures to refer this case to the Judicial Council have increased. An action that in practice can open a broad window for the formation of an internal confrontation and take on dimensions beyond a political dispute.
In this framework, the contact of "Marco Rubio," the US Secretary of State, with "Joseph Aoun," the President of Lebanon, has gained special importance.
According to official American information, in this contact, the issue of the seized explosives and the necessity of not returning them to Hezbollah were raised. Lebanon was also asked to strengthen direct military communication with the Zionist regime.
The simultaneous presentation of these two issues in the American diplomatic contact shows that Washington considers security arrangements at the borders and measures related to Hezbollah's weapons inside Lebanon as part of an interconnected set of its political and security priorities.
This approach has caused some Lebanese political circles to warn that the escalation of pressures in several files simultaneously can limit the space for maneuver of this country's army command and gradually place it before more complex options in managing the relationship with Hezbollah.
Alongside these developments, numerous accounts of the remarks of "Michel Issa," the US Ambassador to Beirut, in private meetings with Lebanese politicians and activists have been published. According to these accounts, he expressed surprise at what he considered the exaggeration of Lebanese officials' concerns about the possibility of a confrontation between this country's army and Hezbollah.
This position is consistent with a report previously published by Al-Akhbar newspaper. According to that report, an American security official, after traveling to the Zionist regime, came to Lebanon and in a meeting with Lebanese officials raised two questions: "What are you afraid of? Of civil war? Who told you that Hezbollah has the ability to confront the Lebanese army?"
It is noteworthy that the Zionist center "Meir Amit" for Intelligence and Terrorism Studies has republished the report that Al-Akhbar newspaper had published about the developments of the period from October 5 to 12, 2026.
These two positions indicate a tendency among some American officials to question Lebanon's assessments of the risks arising from the forced imposition of disarmament on Hezbollah.
In contrast, the considerations attributed to the command of the Lebanese army are based on concerns related to internal stability and the possible consequences of armed confrontation with Hezbollah. Consequences that may go beyond the scope of a specific military operation and take on broader security and social dimensions.
Disagreement Over Tools and Timing; Why Is the Commander of the Lebanese Army Under Pressure?
Returning to the pressures exerted on the command of the Lebanese army, the calls for the dismissal of its commander gain more importance in the context of recent developments.
If America's public demands are focused on disarming Hezbollah and strengthening the authority of the Lebanese government, the dispute that reports reflect about the performance of this country's military command is fundamentally related to executive tools, the timetable, and the limits of the use of force.
In such circumstances, political pressure on the command of the Lebanese army becomes an influential factor in the relations between constitutional institutions and the military structure. Especially if these pressures are accompanied by executive demands that are in conflict with the Lebanese army's assessment of possible risks.
Based on this information, a hypothesis has been raised in Lebanese circles according to which simultaneous American pressures may lead to the formation of a political and security atmosphere that places the Lebanese army before the option of confrontation with Hezbollah, whether through direct security missions or as a result of increased tensions and clashes related to the implementation of decisions regarding the monopoly of weapons in the hands of the government.
This analysis is based on the simultaneity of several developments. Pressure to hold direct military negotiations with the Zionist enemy, the escalation of the level of demands related to disarmament, criticism of the command of the Lebanese army, American attention to internal security files, and also the remarks of some American officials who downplay the risks of confrontation or even encourage it.
On this basis, the Tampa round of negotiations is something beyond a test to measure the possibility of achieving security arrangements between Lebanon and the Zionist enemy. These negotiations also raise a fundamental question: to what extent can the command of the Lebanese army maintain its professional assessments in circumstances of increasing political and foreign pressures?
**************
End/ 345E
