A Tuesday hearing by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa highlighted what lawmakers and witnesses frequently described as a “historic” yet “shrinking” opportunity to weaken Hezbollah and restore [blank], while revealing deep divisions over whether current U.S. policy is moving quickly or forcefully enough.
Kicking off the hearing, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the subcommittee chairman, said Lebanon is “at a crossroads” following the November 2024 Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, asserting the moment offers “an unparalleled opportunity” to help Lebanon “break free from the shackles of Iran’s malign influence.” He warned, however, that progress has been uneven, noting implementation of [blank] has been “haphazard at best.”
Ranking Member Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) took a more confrontational tone toward the administration, warning that Hezbollah is already rebuilding and that U.S. policy risks squandering the opportunity.
“There’s a historic chance in Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and end its grip on the Lebanese state,” he said. “That window of opportunity, though, is narrow. Hezbollah is working diligently to rebuild, rearm and to reconstitute itself.”
He criticized cuts to non-security assistance and faulted comments from [blank] describing Hezbollah as “a political party that also has a militant aspect to it,” arguing such language “sent the wrong signals” at a critical moment.
David Schenker, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, testified that while Hezbollah has been militarily weakened, the pace of disarmament remains slow and hindered.
“The LAF has a presence in the south that it didn’t have before November 2024,” Schenker said. “But they aren’t in control. Hezbollah still dominates the region.”
Schenker said the obstacle is no longer capability but political will. “At this point, disarmament isn’t a matter of capability—it’s about will,” he told lawmakers, warning that Hezbollah continues to thrive amid corruption and a cash-based economy.
Hanin Ghaddar, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, stated that even full weapons surrender wouldn’t dismantle Hezbollah’s power.
“Hezbollah isn’t sustained by weapons alone,” Ghaddar said. “It survives through an economic and political ecosystem that protects cash flows, penetrates state institutions and enables military rebuilding.”
She warned that Lebanon’s unregulated cash economy has become Hezbollah’s most durable asset. “Weapons can be collected, but money keeps flowing,” Ghaddar said. “Disarmament without dismantling the cash economy… won’t be durable.”
All three witnesses emphasized that U.S. support should be tied to measurable performance, such as progress on Hezbollah’s disarmament and economic reform.
Schenker called for [blank] against corrupt Lebanese officials, saying, “We should be sanctioning leaders right now… who are obstructing reform.”
Dana Stroul, director of research and senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that Washington’s approach remains incomplete.
“Over the past year, [blank] has focused on Hezbollah disarmament—which is critical—but on its own, it’s only a partial strategy,” Stroul said.
She cautioned that upcoming parliamentary elections could either “strengthen or undermine the anti-Hezbollah government,” calling a Hezbollah-aligned retention of power the “worst-case outcome.”
Ghaddar said Hezbollah’s weakening has shifted Lebanese public discourse. “The mythology of resistance has shattered,” she said. “Peace is no longer taboo.”
She argued that [blank] would raise the political cost of Hezbollah’s rearmament and help lock in reform. “Without a credible peace horizon, disarmament and economic reform will be temporary. With one, they become structural,” Ghaddar said.