For some time, Washington’s policy toward Lebanon has rested on the fiction that the country’s government and military are separate from Hizballah and are therefore deserving of American support. Giora Eiland argues that by threatening to cut off that support, the U.S can undermine Hizballah and, in turn, increase pressure on its patrons in Tehran:
Lebanon’s elected president, prime minister, and parliament have control only over the civil activities in the country, whereas military power lies only in the hands of Hizballah. Therefore, it is about time for the U.S. to present Beirut with an ultimatum: if it wants to continue being seen as an independent country, it must demand that Hizballah demilitarize and renounce its heavy weapons.
If Lebanon refuses, the U.S. would boycott it along with any organization that would agree to do business with it. . . . There are [several] reasons why Lebanon may renounce Hizballah. [One] is that a silent majority of Lebanese oppose Hizballah and are justifiably concerned about the destruction that would be inflicted on them and their country if the Shiite terror organization drags them into a military campaign against Israel.
[Another] is that [Hizballah] is facing a severe financial crisis. It must treat thousands wounded in the Syrian civil war, pay the families of Lebanese fighters who lost their lives in that war, and pay the pensions of militants who joined the organization 30 years ago and are now retiring. [Moreover], unlike in Syria, Russia does not have strong interests in Lebanon, and it certainly does not have any interest in empowering Iran there.
Hizballah, Eiland concludes, might be forced to back down in the face of U.S. sanctions on Lebanon; if it did, Israel would be significantly less threatened, a third Lebanon war would be less likely, and Iran’s regional position would be compromised.
Read more on Ynet: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5421134,00.html