Lebanon Offered Prosperity, Threatened with War

By Mohamad Hammoud

Washington’s double game promises aid if Hezbollah disarms—while secretly preparing for invasion.

Lebanon today stands at the center of a perilous political trap. On the surface, Washington presents itself as a peacemaker, offering a glittering vision of prosperity: foreign investment, IMF loans and international legitimacy—but only if the Lebanese government enforces the disarmament of Hezbollah. The promise is simple: surrender Hezbollah’s weapons, and the country will be rebuilt.

Yet behind the scenes, according to the leaked DIIPETES briefing paper first reproduced in a Hebrew-language blog, the United States is coordinating with “Israel” to prepare covert operations against Hezbollah inside Lebanon. One hand extends aid; the other sharpens the sword. The documents emphasize that Hezbollah remains a formidable force, making any attempt at disarmament or neutralization highly risky even after the 2024 war with "Israel". What Washington frames as a plan for peace is, in reality, a dual strategy: entice Lebanon with reconstruction while preparing a violent campaign to neutralize a movement that cannot simply be ordered into submission.

The Prosperity Proposal

The so-called “American proposal,” summarized in Hebrew by the site B’Hadrei Haredim, lays out a timeline for Hezbollah’s disarmament. Within weeks, certain weapons must be surrendered; within months, the Lebanese Army is to assume complete security control across the South and Bekaa. By December 31, 2025, all “non-governmental armed entities” must disarm completely.

In return, Lebanon is promised access to IMF loans, an international donor conference, and a gradual easing of “Israeli” military raids. The plan is heavily reliant on international oversight, written with the detached precision of Western technocrats who assume Beirut’s fragile institutions can execute sweeping reforms within a matter of months. The promise is clear: trade Hezbollah’s weapons for reconstruction, and Lebanon will rejoin the international order.

But this vision rests on a fragile assumption—that Hezbollah is simply a militia that can be ordered into retirement. In truth, it is a deeply rooted political, social and cultural force, embedded within communities, running schools and hospitals and representing a symbol of dignity for a population that the Lebanese state has long marginalized.

The War Blueprint

The DIIPETES briefing paper abandons diplomatic euphemism. Purportedly based on leaked Pentagon and Mossad documents, it outlines what the authors call a “Hammer of God” operation: a lightning-fast military campaign aimed at neutralizing Hezbollah’s leadership, weapons stockpiles, and operational infrastructure. The plan envisions airstrikes, sabotage of communications networks, and coordinated ground maneuvers, with US and "Israeli" forces acting in tandem to seize strategic territory and turn off Hezbollah’s capabilities.

The operation assumes that decisive strikes on key command centers, rocket storage sites, and elite units would destabilize Hezbollah’s chain of command. Civilian infrastructure is also referenced in the planning, not for direct targeting but as a secondary mechanism to prevent rapid reconstitution of the group’s operational capacity.

Why These Plans Cannot Succeed

Both the prosperity proposal and the war blueprint rest on a series of flawed assumptions. First, they underestimate Hezbollah’s resilience. Despite losses sustained in prior conflicts, Hezbollah continues to maintain fighters, advanced weaponry, and strong social and political networks. Its identity is intertwined with its military assets, and disarmament cannot be achieved simply through decrees or external pressure.

Second, the Lebanese Army, which is expected to take on the role of the main security force in place of Hezbollah, is currently underfunded, divided by sectarian loyalties, and heavily dependent on foreign aid. Deploying the army into areas controlled by Hezbollah without proper consent could lead to instability and potentially trigger civil conflict, rather than facilitating a smooth transition.

Third, regional repercussions make any military option highly dangerous. An attack on Hezbollah could trigger wider confrontations involving Iran, Iraq, and Yemen, turning a local operation into a regional war. The DIIPETES briefing paper itself acknowledges these risks. However, it assumes they can be contained if the opening phase demonstrates overwhelming US-"Israeli" resolve—a calculation history suggests is far too optimistic.

Finally, the dual-track strategy erodes credibility. By offering prosperity while secretly planning military strikes, the United States undermines trust in Lebanese institutions and strengthens Hezbollah’s narrative that only resistance ensures survival. Far from weakening Hezbollah, the approach risks reinforcing its position and entrenching the very force the plans intend to dismantle.

The Illusion of Control

These revelations expose the limits of external influence over Lebanon’s fate. Washington’s dual-track approach—promise if possible, coercion if necessary—assumes Lebanon can be engineered like a policy experiment. In reality, the country’s history, communal identity, and the deeply rooted legitimacy of Hezbollah make such assumptions dangerously naive. Plans drafted in Washington and Tel Aviv may appear coherent on paper, but they unravel in the face of local realities and resilient social structures.

For Lebanon, these leaks confirm a bitter truth: promises of prosperity can be a prelude to war. For Hezbollah, the briefing reinforces lessons drawn over decades—that only sustained strength, deep social integration, and strategic preparation guarantee survival. For the United States, the dual strategy reflects desperation and a misreading of Lebanon’s political and military realities.

The mirage of prosperity may shimmer briefly, but the shadow of conflict looms far larger. Ultimately, both visions—the carrot of aid and the stick of military coercion—are likely to collapse, leaving Lebanon to bear the consequences of foreign ambition and regional rivalry.