Introduction

Foreign policy has long been a theater of polite deception. Nations cloak self‑interest in the language of “shared values” and “global cooperation.” Yet Donald Trump shattered this tradition with a radically honest approach: blunt, transactional, and unapologetically “America First.” While critics decried his candor as reckless, his honesty exposed the hypocrisy that had defined U.S. diplomacy for decades. Ironically, the world may miss that hypocrisy — because it provided a stabilizing illusion.

The Tradition of American Hypocrisy

For much of the 20th century, U.S. foreign policy operated under a paradox: preaching democracy abroad while supporting authoritarian allies at home. From Cold War interventions to the Iraq War, Washington’s rhetoric often masked strategic interests. As Foreign Affairs notes, America’s global leadership relied on “strategic ambiguity” — a polite way of saying hypocrisy.

This hypocrisy was not merely deception; it was a lubricant for diplomacy. Allies tolerated contradictions because they trusted the façade of American benevolence.

Trump’s Radical Honesty

Trump disrupted this tradition by stripping away the façade. He told NATO allies to “pay up,” openly questioned the value of multilateral institutions, and treated foreign policy as a business negotiation. According to Brookings, his transactional style shocked allies but resonated with domestic audiences tired of endless wars.

Examples of Trump’s bluntness include:

• NATO Funding: He demanded allies meet defense spending commitments, calling out freeloading directly.
• China Trade War: He reframed diplomacy as a zero‑sum economic battle.
• Middle East Deals: He openly prioritized U.S. oil and arms interests, rather than cloaking them in democracy promotion.

Global Reactions

Trump’s honesty polarized the world. Some leaders admired his clarity; others feared his unpredictability. As Council on Foreign Relations highlights, his approach weakened alliances but forced nations to confront uncomfortable truths about dependency on U.S. power.

Why the World Will Miss Hypocrisy

Diplomatic hypocrisy, paradoxically, provided stability. When America claimed to defend “universal values,” allies could justify cooperation even when interests diverged. Trump’s honesty removed that cover, exposing raw power dynamics.

Without hypocrisy, diplomacy becomes brutally transactional. Nations may miss the polite lies that made cooperation easier. As The Atlantic argues, hypocrisy was the “glue” that held together fragile alliances.

The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy

Post‑Trump, American diplomacy faces a dilemma: return to hypocrisy or embrace honesty. Either path carries risks. Hypocrisy may restore alliances but erode domestic trust. Honesty may resonate with voters but destabilize global institutions.

For deeper insights, explore Whiril’s global politics section and Whiril’s analysis on US-China relations.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s radically honest foreign policy was disruptive, but it revealed the contradictions at the heart of U.S. diplomacy. The world may miss American hypocrisy not because it was noble, but because it was useful. In the end, Trump forced nations to confront a question they had long avoided: is diplomacy about values, or is it simply about power?

Israeli Military Targets Militant Infrastructure Amid Escalating Regional Tensions

On Monday, January 6, 2026, Israeli Defense Forces conducted coordinated airstrikes targeting what military officials described as Hezbollah and Hamas military infrastructure across Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and southern border regions. The strikes hit villages including Al-Manara and Ain al-Tineh in the eastern Bekaa Valley, as well as Kfar Hatta and Aanan in southern Lebanon, marking the first time this year Israel issued evacuation warnings before operations. The attacks underscore deepening fractures in a fragile ceasefire agreed fourteen months ago, with Israel maintaining that Lebanese forces have failed to adequately disarm Hezbollah as stipulated in the November 2024 US-brokered agreement.

The Monday operations followed a pattern of near-daily Israeli military activity in Lebanon throughout 2025, despite international outcry and documented civilian casualties. Lebanese authorities report no immediate fatalities from the latest strikes, though damage to residential structures and commercial establishments was extensive. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, speaking after weekend consultations with UN officials, stated that Lebanese government efforts to disarm Hezbollah remain “far from sufficient,” suggesting Israel views continued military pressure as necessary to enforce the ceasefire’s terms.

This analysis examines the strategic calculations driving Israel’s sustained military campaign, the humanitarian toll on Lebanese civilians, the geopolitical implications for regional stability, and whether the international community’s diplomatic frameworks can prevent further escalation.

Strategic Context: Why Israel Continues Strikes Despite Ceasefire

The Disarmament Imperative and Security Calculus

Israel’s military operations intensified as a year-end deadline approached for Lebanon to complete the first phase of Hezbollah’s disarmament, a cornerstone requirement of the November 2024 ceasefire agreement. The accord, brokered by the United States following fourteen months of devastating conflict, mandated that Hezbollah withdraw its forces north of the Litani River—approximately 30 kilometers from the Israeli border—while the Lebanese Armed Forces assumed security control in the south.

However, Israeli intelligence assessments paint a starkly different picture from Lebanese government claims. Israeli Defense Forces documented 2,024 Hezbollah ceasefire violations, while Lebanese Armed Forces took enforcement action in just 593 instances, according to figures released by Israel’s security establishment. This enforcement gap has become Tel Aviv’s primary justification for maintaining what it characterizes as defensive operations against imminent threats.

Council on Foreign Relations senior analyst Steven Cook notes that Israel’s strategic objective extends beyond immediate tactical gains. The operations aim to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting its military capabilities, particularly precision-guided munitions and drone production facilities that Israeli commanders view as existential threats to northern Israeli communities.

The Bekaa Valley’s Strategic Significance

The Bekaa Valley, Lebanon’s fertile agricultural heartland stretching along the Syrian border, has historically served as a critical logistics hub for Hezbollah’s military operations. Israeli military spokesman Colonel Avichay Adraee indicated strikes targeted buildings used by Hamas and Hezbollah, with one strike hitting a home that belonged to Sharhabil Sayed, a Hamas leader killed by Israel in May 2024.

Israeli defense analysts assert the valley’s proximity to Syria makes it ideal for weapons smuggling from Iran through Syrian territory—a supply line Israel has worked systematically to sever. Monday’s strikes on Al-Manara and Ain al-Tineh reflect this strategic priority, targeting what Israeli intelligence characterizes as weapons storage facilities and command nodes for Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force.

The geographical targeting reveals Israel’s dual-track approach: maintaining pressure on Hezbollah’s operational infrastructure in the south while simultaneously disrupting its strategic depth in the east. This strategy mirrors Israel’s broader regional campaign against Iranian influence, recognizing that Hezbollah’s military effectiveness depends on continuous resupply from Tehran through Syrian channels.

---

The Human Cost: Civilian Casualties and Humanitarian Crisis

Documented Civilian Deaths Since Ceasefire

The humanitarian toll of Israel’s sustained military operations in Lebanon has drawn sharp condemnation from international human rights organizations and United Nations officials. According to the UN Human Rights Office, approximately 127 Lebanese civilians have been killed and several injured in operations since the ceasefire took effect on November 27, 2024, with strikes hitting homes, vehicles, and civilian infrastructure across southern villages.

The deadliest single incident occurred on November 18, 2025, when an Israeli drone strike hit Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon, killing at least 13 people, among them eight children. Israel claimed the strike targeted a Hamas training compound, though UN investigators found all documented fatalities were civilians, raising concerns about violations of international humanitarian law principles regarding distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Morris Tidball-Binz characterized the pattern of strikes as war crimes, stating they constitute “repeated attacks on civilians and civilian objects” that violate both international humanitarian law and the UN Charter. His assessment aligns with broader documentation by human rights organizations demonstrating systematic targeting that extends beyond legitimate military objectives.

Displacement and Reconstruction Obstruction

More than 80,000 individuals remain displaced in Lebanon and unable to return to their homes and lands, according to UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The displacement crisis is compounded by Israeli military actions that actively prevent reconstruction efforts.

Human Rights Watch documented systematic Israeli strikes on reconstruction equipment between August and October 2025, destroying bulldozers, excavators, and heavy machinery at storage facilities in Deir Seryan, Msayleh, and Ansariyeh. These attacks killed three civilians and injured eleven, while making reconstruction of Lebanon’s devastated southern communities nearly impossible.

The obstruction extends beyond equipment destruction. Israel started constructing a wall crossing into Lebanese territory that makes 4,000 square metres inaccessible to the population, affecting people’s right to return to their lands, according to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. This territorial encroachment, combined with continued military presence at five positions inside Lebanon, effectively prevents displaced residents from returning even to areas nominally under Lebanese Army control.

Site owners told Human Rights Watch researchers they now clear rubble by hand, fearing any machinery brought in will be destroyed. This deliberate impediment to reconstruction raises questions about Israel’s longer-term territorial ambitions and whether the military campaign aims not merely to neutralize Hezbollah but to permanently alter the demographic and security landscape of southern Lebanon.

Geopolitical Dimensions: Regional Power Dynamics at Play

The US Role: Mediator or Enabler?

Washington’s position in the Lebanon crisis reveals the contradictions inherent in American Middle East policy. While the United States brokered the November 2024 ceasefire and continues to provide diplomatic cover for Israel’s actions, Trump administration envoys have simultaneously pressured Lebanon to accelerate Hezbollah’s disarmament on unrealistic timelines.

US Special Envoy Tom Barrack’s “framework” proposal demanded Hezbollah’s complete disarmament by the end of 2025—a deadline that even sympathetic observers considered unachievable given Lebanon’s weak state capacity and Hezbollah’s deep integration into Lebanese society and politics. The proposal tied disarmament to Israeli troop withdrawal, economic assistance, and cessation of Israeli strikes, creating a complex interdependency that neither side has genuinely embraced.

The Council on Foreign Relations noted that while the Trump administration urged Israel and Lebanon toward improved relations and even facilitated their first direct civilian talks in decades in December 2025, Washington has done little to restrain Israeli military operations that violate the ceasefire’s spirit and letter. This permissive stance reflects broader US regional priorities that privilege Israeli security concerns over Lebanese sovereignty.

The Biden-Trump transition period added further uncertainty. While Biden administration officials emphasized strict ceasefire adherence, Trump’s return to office in January 2025 coincided with Israeli assessments that Washington would provide greater latitude for military action. Trump’s December 2025 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly included discussions about expanding operations if Lebanese disarmament efforts remained insufficient—a green light that preceded the intensified January strikes.

Iran’s Diminished Influence and Hezbollah’s Vulnerability

Hezbollah’s strategic position has deteriorated dramatically since the 2024 conflict. Israel killed most of Hezbollah’s top political and military leaders, including longtime chief Hassan Nasrallah, who had attained iconic status among the group’s supporters. The leadership decapitation, combined with the destruction of much of Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal, has left the organization militarily weakened and politically defensive.

Iran’s capacity to replenish Hezbollah’s capabilities has been constrained by regional shifts. The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 severed a critical arms supply route from Iran through Syrian territory into Lebanon. This strategic setback, combined with Israel’s systematic targeting of weapons convoys and production facilities, has left Hezbollah increasingly isolated and unable to reconstitute its pre-2024 military strength.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem has maintained a defiant public stance, insisting the group will not disarm while Israel occupies Lebanese territory and continues attacks. However, regional analysts say Hezbollah’s influence has waned following its devastating fourteen-month war with Israel, with the group reportedly acceding to the election of President Joseph Aoun—whom it long opposed—to unlock international aid for Lebanon’s reconstruction.

This pragmatic accommodation suggests Hezbollah recognizes its weakened position, even as it refuses to accept formal disarmament. The organization faces a strategic dilemma: maintaining armed resistance risks further Israeli military action that could destroy remaining capabilities and infrastructure, while accepting disarmament would effectively end its raison d’être as a “resistance” movement.

Lebanese Sovereignty and the Disarmament Dilemma

Lebanon’s government finds itself trapped between irreconcilable demands. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stated the first phase of Hezbollah’s disarmament in the area south of the Litani River is “only days away from completion”, a claim intended to demonstrate progress to international stakeholders and forestall expanded Israeli operations.

However, Lebanese officials privately acknowledge the disarmament plan’s severe limitations. The Lebanese Armed Forces lack both the military capacity and political mandate to forcibly disarm Hezbollah in Shia-majority areas where the group enjoys substantial popular support. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem warned that implementation of the “American-Israeli order to disarm” may “lead to civil war and internal strife”—a threat that resonates in a country still scarred by fifteen years of civil war from 1975 to 1990.

President Aoun’s administration has attempted to navigate this impossible terrain by pursuing incremental disarmament in the south while engaging in indirect negotiations with Israel to secure Israeli troop withdrawal and cessation of strikes. Yet this approach satisfies neither Israel, which demands complete and verifiable disarmament including heavy weapons north of the Litani, nor Hezbollah, which views any arms surrender as capitulation.

The Lebanese government’s predicament illuminates the fundamental problem with the ceasefire agreement’s architecture: it required Lebanon to accomplish what no Lebanese government has achieved in forty years—establishing a monopoly on legitimate force throughout its territory. Without genuine state capacity or political consensus, the disarmament demand becomes a formula for continued conflict rather than sustainable peace.

International Law and Accountability: The War Crimes Question

UN Documentation of Violations

United Nations human rights experts have comprehensively documented what they characterize as systematic violations of international humanitarian law. UN experts stated that since the ceasefire came into force, the Lebanese Armed Forces have recorded almost daily violations and the Israel Defense Forces have confirmed over 500 airstrikes on what it alleges are Hezbollah targets.

The pattern of attacks extends beyond military targets. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights verified 108 civilian casualties in Lebanon, including 71 men, 21 women, and 16 children, with at least 19 abductions of civilians from Lebanon by Israeli soldiers, which may amount to cases of enforced disappearances.

UN Special Rapporteur Tidball-Binz emphasized that “intentionally directing attacks against UN personnel is a war crime under international humanitarian law”, referencing incidents where Israeli forces fired on UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeepers. These attacks on neutral international observers compound concerns about Israel’s adherence to the laws of armed conflict.

The UN documentation is significant because it establishes potential criminal liability under international law. While Israel maintains its operations target legitimate military objectives and that civilian casualties result from Hezbollah’s practice of embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas, UN investigators found multiple instances where civilian casualties appear disproportionate or where military necessity was questionable.

The Legal Framework: Occupation, Self-Defense, and Proportionality

Israel’s legal justification for continued strikes rests on claims of self-defense against imminent threats and enforcement of ceasefire violations. Israeli officials argue that under UN Security Council Resolution 1701—which ended the 2006 Lebanon War and was incorporated into the 2024 ceasefire—Israel retains the right to act against threats to its security when Lebanese authorities fail to do so.

However, international legal experts dispute this interpretation. The ceasefire agreement required Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory within sixty days, a deadline Israel has repeatedly refused to meet. Israel’s enduring occupation of at least five positions and two buffer zones north of the Blue Line blatantly contradicts the ceasefire agreement and undermines any prospect of lasting peace, according to UN experts.

The continued military presence transforms Israel’s legal position from one of defensive response to one of belligerent occupation. Under international humanitarian law, an occupying power has different obligations than a state acting in self-defense, including responsibilities to protect civilian populations and prohibitions against collective punishment.

The proportionality calculus also raises concerns. Human Rights Watch characterized Israeli strikes on reconstruction equipment as “apparent war crimes,” noting they violate the laws of war. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure necessary for displaced persons to return home suggests objectives beyond immediate military necessity—potentially indicating punitive rather than defensive intent.

Accountability Prospects and Political Reality

Despite substantial documentation of potential war crimes, accountability mechanisms face significant obstacles. Israel does not recognize the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, though the ICC’s chief prosecutor has opened investigations into the situation in Palestine that could extend to actions in Lebanon.

UN Security Council action remains blocked by American veto power, with the United States consistently shielding Israel from binding resolutions that would mandate ceasefire compliance or impose consequences for violations. This political reality means that even well-documented violations are unlikely to result in meaningful international legal consequences.

Nevertheless, the accumulation of documentation serves important purposes. It establishes a historical record that may influence future diplomatic negotiations, shapes international public opinion, and could inform domestic legal proceedings in jurisdictions that recognize universal jurisdiction for grave breaches of international humanitarian law.

What Comes Next: Scenarios for Escalation or De-escalation

Scenario One: Limited Escalation and Negotiated Resolution

The optimistic scenario envisions continued Israeli military pressure eventually forcing genuine Hezbollah disarmament through a combination of military degradation and diplomatic inducement. Under this pathway, Lebanese Armed Forces gradually expand control throughout the south, Hezbollah withdraws heavy weapons to symbolic storage under international oversight, and Israel agrees to phased withdrawal from its positions conditioned on verifiable compliance.

This scenario requires several improbable developments: Hezbollah’s acceptance of effective disarmament without triggering civil conflict, sustained US diplomatic engagement that balances Israeli security demands with Lebanese sovereignty concerns, and regional powers—particularly Iran—accepting Hezbollah’s diminished status rather than attempting to rearm the group.

The December 2025 direct civilian talks between Israel and Lebanon represent a potential foundation for this pathway. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the talks an “initial attempt to establish a basis for a relationship and economic cooperation,” while Lebanese Prime Minister Salam said Lebanon is “far from diplomatic normalization” but the talks aim at “defusing tension”.

However, the fundamental contradictions remain unresolved. Israel insists on disarmament before withdrawal and cessation of strikes; Hezbollah demands withdrawal and cessation of strikes before discussing disarmament. Without creative diplomatic formulas that allow both sides to claim their core demands are met, the talks risk becoming another forum for mutual recrimination rather than genuine conflict resolution.

Scenario Two: Major Israeli Offensive and Regional Conflagration

Israeli security establishment officials indicated they have been preparing for several days of intensive combat in Lebanon, planning strikes against targets typically off-limits to routine operations, including Hezbollah positions deep in Beirut. This preparations suggest a credible threat of major escalation if diplomatic progress remains elusive.

A large-scale Israeli offensive would likely target Hezbollah’s remaining strategic weapons, leadership bunkers in Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh), and production facilities for precision munitions and drones. Such an operation would inevitably cause significant civilian casualties given the dense urban environment and could trigger wider regional escalation.

Hezbollah would face difficult strategic choices. A massive retaliation against Israeli cities would invite devastating counterstrike and potentially finish the group’s military capabilities. Restraint, however, would risk appearing impotent to its domestic constituency and regional allies. Iran might feel compelled to respond directly, either through missile strikes or by activating other regional proxies, risking the broader Israel-Iran confrontation both sides have thus far avoided.

The Trump administration’s position would prove critical. While Trump has expressed support for Israel’s security concerns, a regional war consuming Lebanon, Syria, and potentially drawing direct Iranian involvement would conflict with Trump’s stated preference for Middle East stability that enables American focus on great power competition with China.

Scenario Three: Frozen Conflict and Perpetual Low-Intensity Warfare

The most likely scenario in the near term is continuation of the present unsatisfactory equilibrium: Israel maintains military pressure through regular strikes, Hezbollah largely adheres to ceasefire constraints while refusing formal disarmament, Lebanese Armed Forces make symbolic gestures toward asserting control, and periodic diplomatic initiatives fail to achieve breakthrough.

This frozen conflict would resemble Israel’s relationship with Gaza between 2014 and 2023—periods of relative calm punctuated by flare-ups, ongoing humanitarian crisis, perpetual displacement, and no genuine resolution of underlying disputes. For Israel, it offers containment without requiring the risks and costs of occupation or major offensive operations. For Hezbollah, it allows survival and gradual reconstitution of capabilities without risking organizational annihilation.

The humanitarian costs would fall primarily on Lebanese civilians, particularly in southern border communities unable to return home due to continued insecurity and destruction. Residents in the eastern Bekaa Valley say they are still living under persistent Israeli threats, with Israeli strikes continuing to target what the military describes as Hezbollah’s logistical and operational base, though many civilians also remain under constant bombardment.

This scenario’s sustainability depends on all parties finding the status quo preferable to alternatives. Israel must believe military pressure contains Hezbollah more effectively than ceasefire compliance would; Hezbollah must calculate survival under pressure beats confrontation; Lebanon must accept limited sovereignty as the price of avoiding civil war; and international powers must tolerate ongoing violations as preferable to wider conflict.

Regional Implications: Lebanon in the Broader Middle East Context

Syria’s Transition and Arms Trafficking

The collapse of Syria’s Assad regime in December 2024 fundamentally altered regional dynamics in ways still unfolding. While the severing of Iran’s primary supply route to Hezbollah weakens the group, the power vacuum in Syria creates new uncertainties. Various armed factions control Syrian territory near the Lebanese border, potentially facilitating weapons smuggling or providing sanctuary for militant groups.

Israeli strikes have not been confined to Lebanon. Throughout 2025, Israel conducted extensive operations in Syrian territory, targeting weapons facilities, establishing security zones, and preventing Iranian rearmament efforts. Israeli Minister of Defence declared that “Israeli forces will remain in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria indefinitely to maintain security zones along the borders”, suggesting a long-term presence that effectively expands Israeli control.

Syria’s interim government has signaled willingness to cooperate with Western demands regarding Hezbollah, but its capacity to control borders and prevent weapons trafficking remains questionable. The country’s fragmentation among various military factions—including Kurdish forces in the northeast, Turkish-backed groups in the north, and residual regime elements—means no single authority can guarantee implementation of commitments.

This Syrian dimension introduces additional complexity to Lebanon resolution. Even if Lebanese authorities successfully disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani, the organization could maintain capabilities in the Bekaa Valley with Syrian supply lines, or relocate assets to Syrian territory for use against Israel. Genuine security arrangements may require coordinated approaches across multiple countries and factions—a diplomatic undertaking of extraordinary difficulty.

The Palestinian Dimension: Hamas in Lebanon

Israel’s targeting of Hamas infrastructure in Lebanon, including the strike on Sharhabil Sayed’s former residence in Al-Manara, reflects growing Israeli concern about Palestinian militant group capabilities beyond Gaza. Following the devastation of Hamas’s Gaza operations through Israel’s 2023-2024 campaign, the organization’s external branches in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Qatar have gained relative importance.

The November 2025 Israeli strike on Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp, which killed thirteen people including eight children, demonstrated Israel’s willingness to attack Palestinian refugee camps it claims harbor Hamas. The strikes killed 13 people, with Palestinian rescue workers checking the scene in the Ain al-Hilweh camp in Sidon. These operations raise fears among Lebanon’s 200,000-plus Palestinian refugees that they face collective targeting.

The Palestinian presence in Lebanon has historically been politically explosive. During Lebanon’s civil war, Palestinian militias were major combatants, and their armed presence contributed to Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982. The Lebanese government has long sought to restrict Palestinian political and military activities, but refugee camps operate with substantial autonomy, making them difficult to police.

Israel’s focus on Hamas targets in Lebanon could become a justification for continued military operations independent of Hezbollah disarmament. If Israel insists on dismantling all militant infrastructure—including Palestinian groups—the disarmament equation becomes even more complex, requiring Lebanese Armed Forces to enter refugee camps and forcibly disarm populations with distinct political identities and security concerns.

Gulf States, France, and the Reconstruction Question

Lebanon’s economic reconstruction requires massive international investment estimated at tens of billions of dollars. President Aoun said Lebanon’s proposal calls for international donors to contribute $1bn annually for 10 years to beef up the Lebanese army’s capabilities and for an international donor conference to raise funds for reconstruction.

However, donor countries—particularly Gulf Arab states and France—condition assistance on political reforms and security arrangements they believe will prevent Lebanon from returning to crisis. Saudi Arabia, which invested heavily in post-civil war Lebanese reconstruction only to see its influence wane as Hezbollah and Iran gained ascendancy, demands credible Hezbollah disarmament before committing funds.

France, Lebanon’s former colonial power and traditional protector of Christian communities, has attempted to broker diplomatic solutions but with limited success. French President Emmanuel Macron’s personal intervention after the 2020 Beirut port explosion produced temporary momentum for reform that ultimately dissipated. French officials now condition reconstruction assistance on concrete security sector reforms and disarmament progress.

This creates a vicious circle: disarmament requires effective Lebanese Armed Forces, which require training and equipment that donors will only provide after disarmament progress. Breaking this cycle likely requires simultaneous moves—disarmament commitments, donor pledges, and security sector assistance—coordinated through complex multilateral frameworks that the Trump administration has shown little interest in leading.

Technical Analysis: Military Capabilities and Strategic Balance

Israel’s Operational Advantages and Limitations

Israeli military superiority over Hezbollah remains overwhelming despite the group’s historical reputation as a capable adversary. The 2024 conflict demonstrated Israel’s intelligence penetration of Hezbollah’s command structure, its ability to strike targets throughout Lebanon with precision, and the effectiveness of its air defenses against Hezbollah’s rocket and drone attacks.

The systematic elimination of Hezbollah’s senior leadership—including Hassan Nasrallah, operations chief Ibrahim Aqil, and multiple regional commanders—degraded organizational cohesion and tactical effectiveness. Israeli forces destroyed an estimated 70-80% of Hezbollah’s pre-war weapons arsenal, including thousands of rockets, anti-tank missiles, and strategic weapons systems.

However, Israel faces constraints in translating tactical superiority into strategic resolution. Ground occupation of southern Lebanon would require significant troop deployments vulnerable to guerrilla warfare—precisely the scenario that forced Israeli withdrawal from its 1982-2000 occupation. Air power alone cannot eliminate Hezbollah’s residual capabilities, particularly weapons cached in civilian areas or in underground facilities Israel cannot locate.

Furthermore, sustained military operations carry domestic political costs. Israeli public opinion, while generally supportive of security operations, grows skeptical of open-ended military commitments without clear victory conditions. The reserves-dependent Israel Defense Forces cannot maintain indefinite mobilization without economic consequences, particularly in a country already strained by multiple security commitments.

Hezbollah’s Residual Capabilities and Adaptation

Despite severe degradation, Hezbollah retains significant military capacity that prevents Israel from achieving uncontested security. The group still possesses thousands of rockets capable of reaching Israeli territory, though its precision-guided munitions and longer-range systems were largely destroyed. Israeli intelligence believes hundreds to a few thousand Hezbollah operatives remain south of the Litani, though not directly on the border.

Hezbollah has demonstrated organizational resilience by maintaining command structures despite leadership losses, suggesting effective succession planning and compartmentalization. The appointment of Naim Qassem as Hassan Nasrallah’s successor, while representing a step down in charisma and military credentials, provided continuity and prevented organizational collapse.

The group has adapted tactically to Israeli operational dominance. Rather than concentrating forces or weapons, Hezbollah has dispersed assets, minimized communications that Israel can intercept, and avoided provocative actions that would justify major Israeli operations. This defensive crouch reflects strategic weakness but also sustainability—Hezbollah can maintain this posture indefinitely without risking organizational survival.

Critically, Hezbollah retains popular support within Lebanese Shia communities, who view the organization as protector against Israeli aggression rather than instigator of conflict. This social foundation provides resilience that purely military degradation cannot eliminate. Unless Israeli operations or diplomatic arrangements address Hezbollah’s political legitimacy within Lebanon’s sectarian system, the group can reconstitute over time.

Lebanese Armed Forces: Capacity, Will, and Sectarian Constraints

The Lebanese Armed Forces face a mission impossible: disarming a better-equipped, better-trained, and more experienced military organization that enjoys support from a substantial portion of Lebanon’s population. The Lebanese Information Minister said the disarmament plan may require “additional time and additional effort” due to restrictions on LAF capacity and the range of tasks required.

Lebanese army personnel are themselves drawn from Lebanon’s sectarian communities, including many Shia soldiers who may feel conflicted about actions against Hezbollah. The LAF has historically avoided confronting Hezbollah, maintaining institutional neutrality that preserved national cohesion but failed to establish state monopoly on force. Asking the army to reverse forty years of policy risks both institutional fracture and civil conflict.

Moreover, the Lebanese Armed Forces lack capabilities for the mission. American military assistance has improved some units’ training and equipment, but the LAF possesses neither the intelligence collection assets to locate Hezbollah’s weapons caches, nor the combat power to seize them by force if Hezbollah resists. The few attempts at weapons seizure have involved token quantities that both sides understand represent symbolic compliance rather than genuine disarmament.

The Lebanese army’s deployment south of the Litani—approximately 5,000 troops as stipulated by the ceasefire—provides visual evidence of state presence but limited actual control. Soldiers man checkpoints and patrol roads but avoid entering villages where Hezbollah maintains weapons or confronting group members they encounter. This face-saving arrangement allows Lebanese officials to claim compliance while Israeli officials claim violation—sustaining the deadlock.

What are the Israeli strikes in Lebanon about?

“On January 6, 2026, Israeli forces struck Hezbollah and Hamas targets across Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and southern regions, hitting villages including Al-Manara, Ain al-Tineh, Kfar Hatta, and Aanan. Israel being self proclaimed rogue state; claims the operations target military infrastructure violating a November 2024 ceasefire, while Lebanese authorities report extensive damage to civilian structures. The strikes reflect deepening tensions over Hezbollah’s disarmament, with Israel documenting over 2,000 ceasefire violations and demanding Lebanese Armed Forces complete disarmament by year-end deadlines. UN human rights officials report at least 127 civilians killed in Israeli operations since the ceasefire began, raising concerns about violations of international humanitarian law. Israel continues violating ceasefire and Gaza Peace Plan . ”

Conclusion: An Intractable Conflict in Search of Resolution

The Israeli strikes on Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and southern border represent more than tactical military operations—they embody the fundamental contradictions of a conflict resistant to conventional diplomatic resolution. Israel demands security guarantees that Lebanon lacks capacity to provide; Hezbollah refuses disarmament that would end its organizational purpose; Lebanese authorities face impossible choices between civil war and continued Israeli military action; and international powers pursue contradictory objectives that sustain rather than resolve tensions.

Several recent developments—a new leadership, cessation of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and weakening of Iran’s power in the region—could help Lebanon emerge from one of its darkest periods, but many obstacles remain on its road out of crisis. The optimism must be tempered by recognition that similar moments in Lebanese history—the 1989 Taif Accord ending civil war, the 2005 Cedar Revolution after Syria’s withdrawal, the 2006 ceasefire ending Israel-Hezbollah war—produced temporary hope before structural problems reasserted themselves.

The question facing regional and international policymakers is whether this moment differs sufficiently to enable genuine transformation, or whether Lebanon remains caught in familiar patterns of violence, displacement, and unresolved sovereignty questions. The answer will determine not only Lebanon’s future but also regional stability in a Middle East already convulsed by multiple conflicts and power transitions.

For Lebanese civilians—particularly those in southern border communities and the Bekaa Valley who have borne repeated waves of violence—the diplomatic abstractions offer little comfort. “What is happening now isn’t short of a war. It is a war,” a Baalbek resident told Al Jazeera, capturing the lived reality beneath the ceasefire’s formal façade. Until political arrangements address the security dilemmas that drive military action, those civilians will continue paying the price of intractable conflict.

---

Key Sources:

• Al Jazeera – Leading independent Middle East news coverage
• United Nations OHCHR – Official human rights documentation
• Council on Foreign Relations – Premier US foreign policy analysis
• Human Rights Watch – International humanitarian law monitoring
• The Times of Israel – Israeli perspective and military reporting
• Washington Post – Major international journalism
• CBC News – Canadian public broadcasting coverage
• PBS NewsHour – US public television international reporting

When President Donald Trump recently stated “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense,” he reignited one of the most unusual territorial disputes in modern geopolitics. The timing was particularly striking—coming just hours after U.S. military operations in Venezuela, the statement sent shockwaves through Copenhagen and raised urgent questions about America’s intentions toward the world’s largest island.

Quick Answer: Trump wants Greenland for its strategic Arctic location, critical military installations like Pituffik Space Base, and vast untapped reserves of rare earth minerals essential for modern technology and national defense. The island’s position between Russia and North America makes it crucial for early missile warning systems and Arctic security.

A Surprising Pattern in American History

America’s interest in Greenland isn’t new, though Trump’s directness about it certainly is. The pursuit stretches back more than 150 years, revealing a consistent thread in U.S. strategic thinking.

In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward—fresh from purchasing Alaska from Russia—proposed buying Greenland from Denmark. The idea went nowhere at the time, but it established a precedent. During World War II, the Danish Ambassador to the US Henrik Kauffmann commenced an agreement with the US that permitted the US military to help Denmark defend its colonies from advancing German forces, effectively allowing American forces to operate across Greenland.

The most serious purchase attempt came in 1946, when President Harry Truman secretly offered to buy Greenland for $100 million in gold—a substantial sum at the time. Denmark politely declined, but the U.S. didn’t abandon its Arctic ambitions. Instead, it secured something arguably more valuable: permanent military access through NATO defense agreements.

The Strategic Heart of Arctic Defense

Understanding why Greenland matters requires looking at a map from above. The island sits at a geographic crossroads where North America, Europe, and the Arctic Ocean meet. Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, is geographically closer to New York—the busiest port on the North American East Coast—than it is to Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital.

Pituffik Space Base: America’s Northern Shield

The crown jewel of U.S. military presence in Greenland is Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Located just 1,207 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, the base is the United States’ northern most military installation that has the responsibility of monitoring the skies for missiles in defense of the United States and its allies.

The construction of this base in 1951-52 was a monumental undertaking. The construction of Thule is said to have been comparable in scale to the enormous effort required to build the Panama Canal. During the Cold War, it housed 10,000 personnel. Today, while staffing has decreased to approximately 150 service members, its strategic importance has only grown.

The base serves as a critical node in America’s ballistic missile early warning system. A ballistic missile early warning station was completed in 1961, and these systems have been continuously upgraded to detect launches from Russia and other potential adversaries. In an age of hypersonic missiles and increased Arctic military activity, this capability has become more vital than ever.

The Arctic’s New Great Game

Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland comes as the Arctic transforms from a frozen frontier into a contested strategic zone. Russian and Chinese vessels increasingly patrol these waters, testing boundaries and asserting presence.

US Vice President JD Vance visited Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March 2025, where he delivered pointed criticism of Denmark’s management of the territory. His comments reflected growing U.S. frustration with what Washington sees as insufficient Danish investment in Arctic security infrastructure.

The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth, opening new shipping routes and making previously inaccessible resources available for extraction. The Arctic is warming at an accelerating pace, leading to more ice-free summers that freight ships can use to ship goods more efficiently. This environmental change is fundamentally altering the geopolitical calculus.

The Mineral Wealth Beneath the Ice

While Trump emphasizes security, Greenland’s economic potential cannot be ignored. The island holds staggering reserves of critical minerals that modern civilization depends on—and that the U.S. desperately wants to secure outside Chinese control.

The Rare Earth Element Challenge

Rare earth elements sound exotic, but they’re essential. These 17 metallic elements are crucial for manufacturing everything from smartphones and electric vehicle motors to F-35 fighter jets and precision-guided missiles. With names such as cerium and lanthanum, rare earths contain key ingredients used in many of today’s technologies — from smartphones to MRI machines, as well as electric cars and military jets.

Here’s the problem: China dominates global rare earth production. Roughly 90 percent of processed rare earths come from China, creating supply-chain vulnerabilities that many countries are now trying to avoid, particularly since China announced restrictions on the export of heavy rare earths in April 2025.

This dependence creates strategic vulnerability. If tensions escalate with Beijing, America’s military-industrial complex and tech sector could face severe supply disruptions. Greenland offers a potential solution.

Greenland’s Mineral Potential

Systematic studies have indicated that Greenland has 10 important deposits of rare earth elements. The most significant include:

Kvanefjeld: Once considered one of the world’s most promising rare earth deposits, JORC-compliant estimates place the total resource at around 1.01 billion tonnes grading 1.10% TREO+. However, political concerns about uranium content and environmental impacts have stalled development.

Tanbreez: The Tanbreez project, Greenland’s most significant rare earth deposit, contains a mix of high-value, heavy rare-earths, zirconium and niobium deposits. In 2024, under pressure from U.S. and Danish officials, Tanbreez sold the project to Critical Metals of the United States, reportedly for much less than what the Chinese offered.

Beyond rare earths, the world’s largest island holds substantial reserves of essential minerals, including lithium, niobium, hafnium and zirconium — key components for batteries and other technological applications.

The Reality Check on Mining

Despite the hype, actually extracting these resources faces enormous challenges. Greenland has a population of 57,000, just 65 of whom were involved in mining as of 2020. The infrastructure simply doesn’t exist—every mine requires building roads, ports, power plants, and housing from scratch in one of Earth’s harshest environments.

As of March 2025 the island has only two active mines: One for gold that is being commissioned, and one owned by Lumina Sustainable Materials for anorthosite. Dozens of companies hold exploration licenses, but turning rock samples into functioning mines requires billions in investment and years of development.

Denmark’s Dilemma and Greenland’s Future

Denmark finds itself in an impossible position. The kingdom has controlled Greenland since the early 18th century, but the relationship has evolved dramatically.

From Colony to Autonomous Partner

Greenland gained home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. Under Danish law, Greenlandic independence is possible at any time based on the Self-Government Act of 2009, after a referendum in Greenland and approval by the Danish parliament.

The Greenlandic government has made its ambitions clear. The Greenlandic government declared in February 2024 that independence is its goal, and independence is expected to be the most important issue at the April 2025 Greenlandic general election.

However, independence faces a major obstacle: economics. Greenland receives substantial subsidies from Denmark—about $600 million annually—that constitute roughly one-third of its GDP. Without alternative revenue sources, full independence would mean severe economic hardship.

Denmark’s Firm Response

When Trump intensified his rhetoric in early January 2026, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in a statement Sunday that the U.S. has “no right to annex” territories of Denmark and has told the U.S. to “stop the threats”.

The timing was particularly sensitive. Just hours before Trump’s latest comments, Miller’s post on Saturday came hours after the U.S. military conducted airstrikes in Venezuela’s capital and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The juxtaposition raised fears that Trump might consider military action.

Frederiksen noted that Denmark, and Greenland by extension, are NATO members, which makes them covered by the alliance’s security guarantee. This complicates any aggressive U.S. moves—taking Greenland by force would mean attacking a NATO ally.

Trump’s Escalating Campaign

Trump’s 2019 purchase proposal was widely dismissed as an oddity. His second-term approach has been far more serious and sustained.

The Envoy Appointment

Since winning re-election in 2024, Trump has renewed the proposal, appointing Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as special envoy to Greenland in December 2025 while refusing to rule out military force.

Landry’s appointment sent an unmistakable signal. Landry said Monday he is going to “go have us a great conversation with those folks in Greenland” and expressed his intention to make Greenland part of the United States.

Vance’s Pointed Visit

US Vice President JD Vance visited Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March 2025 in a trip that was scaled back from an initially planned three-day visit after Greenland and Denmark criticised the itinerary as creating “unacceptable pressure” and an “escalation”.

During his visit, Vance delivered sharp criticism: “Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass”.

The Threat of Force

Perhaps most alarmingly, Trump has refused to rule out military options. Trump announced that he would institute “very high” tariffs against Denmark if it resisted attempts to make Greenland a U.S. territory, questioned the legal status of Danish sovereignty in Greenland, and refused to rule out economic or military action against Denmark.

The possibility of tariffs targeting specific Danish exports has been floated. Trump might use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to raise tariffs on Danish goods, such as Novo Nordisk’s drug Ozempic—a medication with significant U.S. market presence.

Greenland’s Voice in Its Own Future

Lost in much of the coverage is what Greenlanders themselves want. The island’s leaders have been unequivocal in their response.

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Monday rebuked President Donald Trump’s appointment of a special envoy to Greenland, stating: “Greenland belongs to the Greenlandic people, and territorial integrity must be respected. We are happy to cooperate with other countries, including the United States, but this must always take place with respect for us and for our values and wishes”.

Greenland’s PM Jens Frederik Nielsen firmly rejected US President Trump’s repeated comments on US possibly annexing Greenland, asking for dialogue and respect for international law.

The frustration extends beyond political leaders. “No more pressure. No more hints. No more fantasies about annexation,” Nielsen urged on Sunday, emphasizing that while Greenland is open to a dialogue with the U.S., it will no longer stand for “pressure” or “disrespectful posts on social media.”

International Reaction and Implications

Trump’s Greenland campaign has generated international pushback beyond Denmark.

European Solidarity

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also backed Copenhagen in June 2025. “The principle of the inviolability of borders is enshrined in international law and is not up for negotiation,” Merz said in Berlin after a meeting with Frederiksen.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in December 2024 that “territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law” and stated “we stand in full solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland”.

Russia’s Perspective

Even Russia has weighed in. During an address at the International Arctic Forum in the Russian city of Murmansk, the largest city within the Arctic circle, earlier this year, Putin said he believed Trump was serious about taking Greenland and that the US would continue its efforts to acquire it.

Putin’s comments reveal how Greenland fits into broader Arctic competition. Russia views the region as crucial to its strategic interests and is wary of increased American control.

NATO’s Awkward Position

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte hedged Trump’s Greenland claims during his visit to the White House in March 2025, albeit agreeing on the island’s importance to the alliance’s security.

Rutte’s delicate balancing act reflects NATO’s impossible position. The alliance needs both the U.S. and Denmark as committed members, but Trump’s aggressive stance threatens to fracture European-American unity.

What This Means for Travelers and Tourism

Greenland’s tourism industry has grown significantly in recent years, and increased international attention—even controversial attention—has paradoxically boosted interest.

Current Tourism Landscape

Greenland welcomed approximately 100,000 tourists in 2024, a significant increase from pre-pandemic levels. The island offers unique experiences: massive icebergs, northern lights, indigenous Inuit culture, and some of Earth’s most pristine wilderness.

Sustainable Tourism Concerns

The melting ice sheet that makes minerals more accessible also threatens Greenland’s environment. Between 2002 and 2023, Greenland lost 270 billion tons of frozen water each year as winter snowfall failed to compensate for ever-fiercer summer temperatures.

Tourism operators and the Greenlandic government are increasingly focused on sustainable practices that preserve the island’s fragile ecosystems while providing economic benefits to local communities.

Practical Information

The best time to visit Greenland depends on your interests. Summer (June-August) offers 24-hour daylight and accessible hiking, while winter (September-April) provides northern lights viewing opportunities. Most visitors arrive through Kangerlussuaq, though direct flights from Iceland and Denmark are also available.

Nuuk, the capital and largest city with about 18,000 residents, offers modern amenities alongside cultural attractions. Smaller settlements provide more authentic experiences but require careful planning due to limited infrastructure.

Expert Analysis: What Comes Next?

International relations experts are divided on Trump’s ultimate intentions and likelihood of success.

Some analysts believe Trump is primarily engaging in negotiation theater—making extreme demands to extract concessions on military access, mineral rights, or other strategic interests. Others take him at his word and worry about genuine attempts to pressure Denmark into ceding territory.

Marc Jacobsen, a researcher at the Royal Danish Defence College, told AFP that “Vance refers to the importance of Greenland for US national security. That’s true, it’s been like that for a very long time.” The base’s purpose is “to protect the US against threats, especially from Russia since the shortest distance from missiles from Russia towards the US goes via North Pole, via Greenland”.

The most likely scenario involves increased U.S. investment in Greenland’s infrastructure and mining development, enhanced military cooperation, and perhaps expanded American presence at Pituffik Space Base—all without formal territorial transfer. This would address U.S. strategic concerns while respecting Greenlandic self-determination and Danish sovereignty.

The Broader Context: Arctic Competition

Greenland has become a focal point in what some call a new Cold War in the Arctic. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and invested heavily in Arctic research and shipping routes. Russia maintains a substantial Arctic military presence and views the region as essential to its security and economic future.

Greenland’s Premier, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, has recently indicated that China will be excluded from its rare-earth development plans, aligning more closely with the U.S., EU, and Japan. This strategic alignment represents a significant shift and suggests that Western pressure on Greenland is yielding results without requiring territorial annexation.

Conclusion: An Issue That Won’t Disappear

Trump’s obsession with Greenland reflects legitimate strategic concerns wrapped in undiplomatic rhetoric. The island’s military importance is undeniable. Its mineral wealth is real, even if overhyped. And China’s Arctic ambitions do pose challenges to Western interests.

What remains unclear is whether Trump’s approach will achieve American objectives or simply alienate crucial allies. Denmark’s firmness suggests that bullying tactics won’t work. Greenland’s desire for independence means its people won’t be bargaining chips in great power politics.

The Arctic is changing rapidly—environmentally, economically, and geopolitically. Greenland sits at the center of these changes. How the U.S., Denmark, Greenland, and other powers navigate this situation will shape Arctic governance for decades.

One thing is certain: this story is far from over. As ice sheets melt and geopolitical temperatures rise, the world’s largest island will remain at the heart of 21st-century great power competition.