BEIRUT — Amid deepening fears of broader conflict on the Israeli-Lebanese border, a prominent Lebanese Shiite religious leader, Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan, delivered a public warning against trusting American security guarantees. His statement, “Whoever drinks from the cup of American promises will find himself without a homeland,” amplifies long-running anxieties within Lebanon as the country continues to serve as a battleground for Iran-backed proxy actions against Israel.
The warning, issued in a sermon broadcast across southern Lebanon this week, lands at a crucial moment. Iranian-backed Hezbollah has intensified its attacks on northern Israeli communities and military outposts since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel. That attack, recognized as the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, killed and abducted over a thousand Israeli civilians. In response, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have conducted sustained defensive and retaliatory strikes across the Lebanese border, characterizing their operations as necessary to thwart the larger war imposed by Iran and its regional proxies.
Lebanon’s Precarious Position in a Broader War
The cycle of violence on Israel’s northern frontier is part of a wider military campaign involving Iranian-backed terror networks: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and allied militias operating in Syria and Iraq. Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, and other Western democracies, boasts an arsenal of tens of thousands of Iranian-supplied rockets and advanced munitions. Its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, has openly stated the group’s alignment with Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance,” dedicated to Israel’s destruction and to exporting Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.
For many Lebanese, this continuous militarization has held the country hostage to decisions made in Tehran and southern Beirut, rather than by the Lebanese state. Ordinary residents, particularly in the south, repeatedly express fear of being caught in the crossfire—unable to prevent Hezbollah’s provocations yet vulnerable to the massive Israeli reprisals that follow. Decades of such proxy warfare, aggravated by economic collapse and governmental paralysis, have left the Lebanese population dependent on the decisions of armed actors whose interests rarely align with the broader pursuit of peace or stability.
U.S. Guarantees: Support with Limits
Sheikh Qabalan’s warning reflects widely shared doubts about the durability of American security assurances in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Historically, U.S. involvement in Lebanon has fluctuated, from the deployment and rapid withdrawal of Marines in the 1980s following terror attacks, to recent diplomatic efforts and limited military assistance for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). The general perception among Lebanon’s political class—and within many local communities—is that American promises are conditional and falter during crises, especially when U.S. strategic interests shift or attention wanes in Washington.
While the current U.S. administration has again affirmed its commitment to Israel’s security, and Defense Minister Israel Katz and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coordinate closely with their American counterparts, the same guarantees are not extended to Lebanon. Instead, recent diplomatic visits and humanitarian support have been accompanied by warnings that the full-scale involvement of Hezbollah in a new war against Israel would invite catastrophic consequences for the Lebanese state.
Internal Struggles: Hezbollah’s Power Versus Lebanese Sovereignty
The tension within Lebanon goes deeper than foreign assurances. Hezbollah’s political and military dominance, established after Israel’s 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon and cemented by the 2006 war, has prevented effective national governance and complicated efforts at economic reform. The group’s control is not passive: it actively undermines state sovereignty, conducts its own foreign policy, and runs a parallel military structure beyond any state oversight. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) plays a direct role in training and arming Hezbollah operatives. Attempts by civil society to limit Hezbollah’s influence are frequently met with intimidation or violence.
The IDF’s recent operations have targeted not only Hezbollah missile launch sites but also key militia commanders embedded in civilian populations—a tactic meant to degrade military capability while minimizing risk to non-combatants. Nonetheless, both Israeli and international observers agree that Hezbollah’s willingness to act as an agent of Iran’s regional objectives puts all Lebanese at risk of devastating escalation.
Geopolitical Stakes and International Responses
Against this complex backdrop, regional and international actors have scrambled to prevent a full-scale conflict. The United States and Europe have dispatched envoys to Beirut and Jerusalem, seeking a diplomatic solution that would constrain Hezbollah and avert a wider war. Yet Hezbollah’s ideological commitment to confrontation—bolstered by Iranian support and emboldened by what it frames as U.S. unreliability—has limited the impact of outside mediation. Gulf Arab states, wary of Iranian expansion and destabilization, have mostly limited their role to humanitarian assistance for Lebanese civilians.
For Israel, the message is unequivocal: The war on its northern border is viewed as a direct continuation of the war imposed by Iranian-sponsored terror after the October 7 massacre. Security officials, including IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, insist that deterrence can only be assured by degrading Hezbollah’s offensive capacity and demonstrating Israel’s resolve to defend its citizens at all costs.
Historical Lessons: Lebanese Vulnerability to Foreign Manipulation
Lebanon’s post-independence history, marred by repeated cycles of foreign intervention and internal fragmentation, adds deeper resonance to Sheikh Qabalan’s warning. The country’s 1975-1990 civil war, the aftermath of the Syrian occupation, and recurrent Israeli incursions are all instances in which Lebanese sovereignty has been compromised—whether in the name of resistance, Arab unity, or outside guarantees.
The irony in Qabalan’s admonition is that while he critiques American promises, many Lebanese express equal or greater concern over the promises and interventions of regional actors, especially Iran. Hezbollah’s ongoing militarization in the service of Iran’s anti-Israel ideology, often at odds with the wishes of ordinary Lebanese, makes external guarantees—be they American, Iranian, or otherwise—inherently unstable.
Conclusion: Between Proxy War and Fragile Peace
Sheikh Qabalan’s high-profile warning has reignited a debate among Lebanese and international observers about the future of Lebanon’s sovereignty and stability. As the country faces intensified threats from the war between Israel and Iran’s proxy militias, the reliability of foreign assurances—American or Iranian—remains deeply suspect. For Israel, maintaining a credible deterrent and acting in coordinated defense with trusted allies is deemed essential in preventing new atrocities like October 7 and in countering a hostile network committed to its destruction.
The unresolved question for Lebanon is how to escape its role as a battlefield in a regional war for which it did not vote. Without fundamental change—dismantling Hezbollah’s para-state, restoring state authority, and defining a genuine national interest—Lebanon appears destined to remain a pawn in geopolitical struggles beyond its control. In the meantime, warnings like those of Sheikh Qabalan only underscore the high stakes for all who live between the lines.
