By Nicholas Blanford – BEIRUT – Article represents view of Author

Recent visits by US civilian and military officials to
Beirut come amid con­cerns that the adminis­tration of US President
Donald Trump could reduce fi­nancial assistance to the Lebanese Army,
which is playing a vital role in defending Lebanon against the Islamic
State (ISIS) and other ex­tremist groups. Lebanese
President Michel Aoun caused a diplomatic and political stir in February
when he said the militant Shia Hezbollah, Iran’s most prized proxy
force, was a “comple­ment” to the Lebanese Army in helping defend the
tiny Mediterra­nean country against Israeli aggres­sion.

Aoun’s
comments raised ques­tions in the United States about the continued
funding of a military that is said to collude with what Wash­ington
classifies as a “terrorist” or­ganisation.“Lebanon’s
new president is le­gitimising Hezbollah’s military role, which is
independent of control by the Lebanese state,” wrote Elliott Abrams,
senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council for For­eign
Relations and former US depu­ty national security adviser. “If
it is true that LAF (Lebanese Armed Forces)-Hezbollah coopera­tion is
increasing, the United States should demand that the trend be halted and
reversed,” he wrote.

Aoun’s comments also earned a
retort from the top UN diplomat in Lebanon who said Hezbollah was
required to disarm under UN Secu­rity Council resolutions rather than
serve as a defence force for Leba­non. Saudi King
Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud was also reported to have postponed a
planned visit to Beirut to protest the comments by Aoun, a Christian who
was backed by Hez­bollah to become president. Saudi Arabia is one of several Arab countries that classify Hezbol­lah as a “terrorist” organisation.

In
February, US Army General Joseph Votel, the head of the US military’s
Central Command, vis­ited Beirut to discuss the military assistance
programme and the war against ISIS. Several hundred
militants from ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, considered an al-Qaeda
affiliate, are holed up in barren mountains near the town of Arsal in
Lebanon’s north-eastern corner adjacent to the Syrian border.

The
United States has provided weaponry, including self-propelled 155mm
artillery and missile-firing Cessna reconnaissance aircraft, to help the
Lebanese military keep the armed groups at bay.

Votel
was preceded in Beirut by US Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennes­see, and
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who inspected
front-line army positions around Arsal. He said the United States is
committed to working with the Lebanese Army, which is the fifth largest
recipient of US mili­tary assistance — more than $1.4 billion since
2005.

However, the country is vul­nerable to spillover
from the war in neighbouring Syria and Wash­ington is not alone in
recognising that improving Lebanon’s military capabilities helps
safeguard the country from jihadist groups such as ISIS.

In
2016, Britain’s then-Defence minister, Philip Hammond, said Lebanon was
Europe’s “first line of defence” against ISIS. Britain has invested
heavily in Lebanon’s mili­tary, helping train and equip four new
regiments that are deploying along the Syrian border.

But
Hezbollah’s presence com­plicates international goodwill for the
Lebanese Army. The Party of God’s opponents have long ques­tioned the
army’s relationship with the Iran-backed group, the most powerful
non-state player in the region.

In December, Israel
accused the Lebanese Army of supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah and
claimed that Lebanese soldiers and Hezbollah militants jointly patrol
Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

More recently,
Israeli security of­ficials asserted that the Lebanese Army,
strengthened by interna­tional support, is expected to fight alongside
Hezbollah in the next war with the Jewish state.

In
reality, Hezbollah’s battle plans have no space for Lebanon’s military.
The army will likely seek to defend its positions in any con­flict and
perhaps strike at targets of opportunity but it is not expected to
coordinate with Hezbollah. The relationship between the army and
Hezbollah is subtle and nuanced, with both parties knowing where each
other’s red lines lie.

Lebanon’s army is in no
position, politically or militarily, to forci­bly disarm Hezbollah in
accord­ance with UN resolutions. To do so would trigger serious
sectarian violence.

Hezbollah is careful not to malign the one state institution that the Lebanese see as a guaran­tor of civil peace.

There
is coordination on some levels, particularly between mili­tary
intelligence and Hezbollah’s own security apparatus but, on the whole,
they leave each other alone.

Trump has stated that he
wants to slash US overseas financial assis­tance but there is a good
chance US support for Lebanon’s military will continue uninterrupted —
at least for now.

US Defense Secretary James Mat­tis is
familiar with the Lebanese Army and its needs from his time as head of
the Central Command and Washington sources say he seeks to maintain the
current level of sup­port.

US security officials are
aware of the political realities of Leba­non and the complex nature of
the army-Hezbollah relationship but, given the Trump administration’s
animus towards Iran, more com­ments like those made by Aoun linking the
army to Hezbollah will provide grist to those seeking to disrupt US
military assistance to Lebanon.

Nicholas Blanford
is the author of Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah’s Thirty-Year
Struggle Against Israel (Random House 2011). He lives in Beirut.