The Lebanese army’s role in the US strategy against Hezbollah dominated military talks at US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. The talks ended without tangible progress, highlighting Washington’s pressure on the military and the limits of its leadership’s willingness to take measures against Hezbollah that could trigger an internal conflict. According to informed sources, the army command had preferred to avoid direct military talks with the Israeli occupation, believing that Tel Aviv’s demands left little room for a breakthrough. Negotiating while Israeli attacks continued and without clear commitments to withdraw from Lebanese territory risked forcing the army to undertake tasks beyond its mandate and capacity. Washington pressured Lebanon’s political leadership to send a military delegation despite the army’s reservations. The account aligns with Israeli media reports that the US insisted on holding the talks despite low expectations for a breakthrough. The army command had sought to persuade President Joseph Aoun to allow Simon Karam, head of Lebanon’s negotiating delegation, to join the meeting and prevent direct contact between Lebanese and Israeli military officers. Aoun told the command that Washington had rejected the proposal. Israeli coverage highlighted Tel Aviv’s insistence on disarming Hezbollah and making any further withdrawal from Lebanese territory conditional on verifying that the required security arrangements had been implemented. The disagreements also concerned how Israel would assess the Lebanese army’s performance. Israeli reports pointed to a desire for direct operational coordination with the Lebanese military, beyond existing US-mediated channels. These demands reflect a fundamental divide. Lebanon wants Israel to halt its military operations and withdraw from Lebanese territory. Israel, by contrast, treats its continued occupation as leverage to secure progress on Hezbollah’s disarmament. The lack of progress in Tampa was consistent with the army command’s reported reservations. It does not necessarily signal the end of negotiations, despite the Lebanese political leadership’s complete submission to US demands. The talks also raised questions about the relationship Washington seeks between Lebanon’s political leadership and its military. Critics of US policy argue that Washington wants the army to implement the government’s security and negotiating positions while pressuring the government to accelerate Hezbollah’s disarmament. The Tampa talks were therefore more than a test of whether Lebanon and the Israeli occupation could reach security arrangements. They raised a broader question. Can the Lebanese army command maintain its professional judgment as domestic and foreign pressure intensifies? The issue extends beyond the principle that the military must answer to civilian authorities. The deeper question is whether Lebanon’s political leadership can make independent decisions that account for domestic realities rather than simply meet foreign demands, particularly when those decisions risk destabilizing the country. Reports of US pressure to remove army commander General Rodolphe Haykal have added to the tension. The reported dispute centers on the pace of Hezbollah’s disarmament. Lebanese political and media figures have also criticized the army leadership and urged it to implement government decisions more forcefully. Their calls reflect a wider dispute over how to establish a state monopoly on arms and whether the army should use force against Hezbollah. Official sources reported that the US and Saudi embassies had issued what amounted to an “instruction” over the previous 48 hours, prompting several activists to criticize the army for failing to implement the government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah. The pressure has coincided with increased US attention to Lebanon’s security, judicial and political affairs. The latest flashpoint is the case of the “explosives truck,” which has sparked a political and media dispute over Hezbollah’s links to the shipment, its intended purpose and the authorities’ handling of the case. Washington has intensified pressure to refer the case to the Judicial Council, a move that could widen the domestic confrontation beyond the political sphere. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised the explosives case during a call with Aoun, according to official US accounts. Rubio reportedly stressed that the seized explosives should not be returned to Hezbollah and called for stronger direct military communication between Lebanon and the Israeli occupation. By addressing both issues, Washington asserted that it views border security arrangements and domestic measures concerning Hezbollah’s weapons as interconnected priorities. Lebanese political circles warn that pressure on several fronts could narrow the army’s room for maneuver and complicate its management of relations with Hezbollah. US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa has reportedly expressed surprise in private meetings with politicians and activists at what he considers excessive Lebanese concern about a possible confrontation between the army and Hezbollah. The remarks echo a report previously published by Al-Akhbar, which said a US security official visited Lebanon after traveling to the Israeli occupation and challenged Lebanese officials over their fears of civil war. The official asked: “What are you afraid of, a civil war? Who told you Hezbollah is capable of confronting the army?” The Israeli Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center republished Al-Akhbar’s account in a report covering events from October 5 to 12, 2026. The statements suggest that some US officials question Lebanese assessments of the risks of forcibly disarming Hezbollah. The army command’s reservations, by contrast, reflect concerns that armed clashes could destabilize the country and trigger security and social consequences far beyond a limited military operation. Calls to dismiss Haykal take on added significance in this context. While Washington publicly emphasizes disarmament and strengthening state authority, the dispute over the army’s performance centers on the means, timetable and limits of force. Political pressure could strain relations between Lebanon’s constitutional institutions and its military, particularly if government demands conflict with the army’s assessment of the risks. Some Lebanese circles believe the cumulative pressure could create conditions that leave the army facing a confrontation with Hezbollah, either through direct security orders or escalating clashes over the implementation of the state’s monopoly on arms. This assessment draws on several converging developments, including pressure for direct military talks with the Israeli occupation, tougher disarmament demands, criticism of the army command, US involvement in domestic security cases and statements by US officials that downplay the risks of confrontation. The Tampa talks were therefore more than a test of whether Lebanon and the Israeli occupation could reach security arrangements. They raised a broader question. Can the Lebanese army command maintain its professional judgment as domestic and foreign pressure intensifies? This is an edited translation of an article originally published in Arabic.
