:
The visit of Army Commander Rudolf Heikal to Washington coincided with a sensitive regional and political phase, where security issues overlap with political considerations, and trust takes precedence over any technical dialogue regarding American support or aid to the military establishment, which will crystallize concretely at the army support conference scheduled to be held in Paris at the beginning of next March.
Despite the importance of the visit in itself, its results remained within the framework of mutual anticipation, without achieving a clear breakthrough or significant deterioration in the level of the relationship and continued American support, after the atmosphere that prevailed in the meeting of the Army Commander with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, which did not lead to positive results.
In this context, diplomatic sources who closely follow the American atmosphere indicate that American interest in the Lebanese army file is no longer limited to the volume or quality of support. Diplomatic sources confirm that the American position has become fundamentally linked to the nature of the role played by the army, especially in the “sensitive” areas south of the Litani, and not just north of the river.
In this regard, the role of Senator Graham is prominent, according to sources, which indicate that he enjoys great political influence by virtue of his position as head of the committee responsible for distributing resources and appropriations in the American budget, which makes him a major player in any decision related to financing the Lebanese military institution.
Therefore, the sources believe that the Army Commander’s meeting with Graham was one of the most prominent points of the visit, given the direct questions it included related to the army’s relationship with Hezbollah and how to deal with the Lebanese reality in light of the American classifications of the party. These questions reflected the level of caution prevailing in Washington, more than they reflected a clear intention to change the support policy in the near future.
In parallel, the sources drew attention to what happened in the congressional discussion session that Heikal attended two days ago, which dealt with the role of the Lebanese army, where opinions were put forward that believe that any future support must be linked to measurable practical results, and not just political commitments, as David Schenker emphasized, where there was a clear focus on the issue of coordination south of the Litani, and on the extent of the army’s ability to impose its presence within the existing balances.
It should be noted that Schenker also said that the main problem does not lie in the army’s lack of military capabilities, but rather in the nature of the decisions that govern the work of the military institution within the Lebanese political context, as the sources believe that although there is understanding and cooperation at the military-technical level with the Lebanese army, the general political climate in Washington imposes a more cautious approach.
Accordingly, the sources conclude that Washington today appears to be in the position of monitoring what the Lebanese government’s decisions will lead to, especially with regard to the second phase of the arms control plan, if this plan is clearly established and with a specific timetable, as this path is seen as an essential element in rebuilding confidence, and not only as a purely security measure.
