A US senator cuts short his meeting with the Lebanese army chief over Hezbollah
Senator Lindsey Graham says General Joseph Hikel refused to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization, citing Lebanon’s internal political context.
A statement by one of the most prominent members of the US Senate has once again highlighted the growing political pressure exerted by the United States on Lebanon regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, particularly in relation to the stance of official Lebanese institutions toward the group.
A brief encounter between Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, General Joseph Hikel, sparked widespread political and media debate after the meeting ended abruptly due to a clear disagreement over how Hezbollah should be characterized.
According to Graham’s own account, the meeting lasted only a few minutes. He said he posed a direct question to the army chief about whether he considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hikel’s negative response, justified by what he described as Lebanon’s internal context, prompted the US senator to immediately end the meeting, arguing that such a position raises serious doubts about the nature of the partnership with the Lebanese military institution.
In a post on the X platform, Graham wrote: “I just held a brief meeting with the Lebanese Chief of Defense, General Joseph Hikel. I asked him directly whether he believed Hezbollah was a terrorist organization. He answered, ‘No, not in the context of Lebanon.’ I then ended the meeting immediately.”
The senator went beyond merely recounting the incident, adding a sharply worded comment in which he stressed that Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization and recalled that its members are, according to him, involved in attacks targeting Americans. He emphasized that this designation is not the product of a single administration, but rather a decision adopted by successive US administrations, both Republican and Democratic, since 1997.
He added that the persistence of such views within the Lebanese Armed Forces raises serious questions about their reliability as a partner, expressing frustration with what he described as double standards in the region and warning that the issue carries serious implications.
These developments unfold within a complex political and security environment. Washington has classified Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization since the late 1990s and accuses it of involvement in operations targeting US interests both regionally and internationally. US officials have repeatedly warned of the consequences of what they view as Lebanon’s slow response in addressing the group’s weapons.
US envoy Thomas Barrack had previously hinted at the possibility of Israel taking unilateral steps if the stalemate over disarmament continues. At the same time, the Lebanese army, according to official statements, is seeking to ensure that weapons remain exclusively in the hands of the state, in line with the 2024 agreement that ended a large-scale confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel, stressing that the state has fulfilled a substantial portion of its commitments.
For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun emphasized that consolidating weapons under state authority aims to stabilize the country and create the conditions necessary for economic recovery. He noted that the government had approved a plan prepared by the army to implement this approach, without setting a specific timeline, in order to avoid internal unrest.
Conversely, Hezbollah has tied any discussion about relinquishing its weapons to a set of conditions, foremost among them Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories, an end to attacks, the release of detainees, and the launch of reconstruction efforts. This comes amid ongoing tensions following the October 2023 war, which expanded in September 2024. Despite a subsequent agreement, Israel, according to Lebanon, continues to violate its terms and maintains control over five hills it seized during the confrontations.
