
U.S. Softens Its Position On Hizbullah And Its Weapons; Special Envoy Thomas Barrack: Hizbullah Is 'A Political Party,' It Will Hand Over Only Its Heavy Weapons, And Only Over Time
This change was reflected in the appointment of Thomas Barrack, an American businessman of Lebanese origin and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, to oversee the Lebanon portfolio. He replaces Morgan Ortagus, who was known for her hawkish approach to Hizbullah.[1] Barrack's softer tone regarding the Lebanese government, and the essence of his statements, surprised many in Lebanon and abroad, who had expected him to continue in Ortagus' footsteps and strongly pressure the Lebanese state to disarm Hizbullah.
However, Barrack effectively recognized Hizbullah as a political party that should not be ignored, differentiating between this and the organization's "military wing." Moreover, he avoided indicating whether the U.S. would remove Hizbullah from the list of terrorist organizations if it disarmed its military wing and focused on its political activity. The U.S. has already done this for Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), the jihadi terrorist organization that took over Syria in December 2024 and is headed by Ahmed Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani.
Barrack also framed Hizbullah's disarmament as a domestic Lebanese issue that would have to be with Hizbullah's consent and not imposed by force, making clear that the U.S. has no intention of interfering in the matter. Furthermore, he in effect recognized Hizbullah's right to continue to possess arms by calling for it to give up only its heavy weapons, and even this only gradually, as Israel withdraws from the territory it occupied in southern Lebanon and carries out other steps.
The positions expressed by Barrack are in contrast with the traditional positions of the U.S., which does not distinguish between Hizbullah's so-called "political wing" and "military wing," but rather defines the entire organization as terrorist.[2] In addition, the U.S. has to date insisted that Hizbullah disarm completely across all of Lebanon, in accordance with the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire agreement of November 27, 2024, which is, as is known, guaranteed by the U.S. and France.
It should be noted that the early signs of this shift were apparent during the tenure of Ms. Ortagus. Although she vetoed Hizbullah's participation in the new Lebanese government, calling it "a red line," the U.S. embassy in Beirut welcomed the new government under Nawaf Salam, which preserves Hizbullah's representation in that it includes two ministers from this organization.[3]
This report will present recent statements by U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack on the topic of Hizbullah's disarmament.
U.S. Special Envoy Barrack: Hizbullah – A Political Party That Has A Future In The Country
"Hizbullah is a political party. It also has a militant aspect. Hizbullah needs to see that there's a future for them, that that road is not harnessed just so we're against them and that there's an intersection of peace and prosperity for them also…"[4]
This surprising declaration – which completely contradicts the U.S. position that defines Hizbullah as a terrorist organization without any distinction between its military and political wings – was made by none other than Thomas Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Special Envoy to Syria, and diplomat in charge of the Lebanon portfolio, at a press conference he convened in Beirut on July 7, 2025, following a meeting he had with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
Asked how the U.S. intended to respond if Hizbullah refuses to turn over its weapons to the Lebanese government, Barrack said: "The good news for the U.S. is we don't intend to deal with it. We intend for you to deal with it, so this is not a situation of the United States coming in and saying let us tell you we want a regime change, let us tell you we're unhappy with one of your largest political parties… What we're doing is saying, you want change, you change it and we'll be there to support you. If you don't want change it's no problem. The rest of the region is moving at Mach speed and you will be left behind, sadly, you will be left behind."
Posing a rhetorical question to the journalists at the press conference, Barrack asked: "Is Hizbullah a political party in Lebanon?", and added: "… So why do you think America or France or Great Britain are going to come in and resolve a political party in a sovereign country? That's not going to happen. It's your problem. You figure it out…"[5]
Thomas Barrack, U.S. Special Envoy to Syria and U.S. ambassador to Turkey (Source: Lebanon-press.com, July 8, 2025)
The significance of the remarks by U.S. Envoy Barrack is that he recognizes Hizbullah as a legitimate political party in Lebanon that has a future in the country. At a press conference he convened in New York on July 11, he reiterated the distinction between Hizbullah's military and political wings. Although he clarified that the U.S. sees Hizbullah as a terrorist organization, he stressed that, from a Lebanese perspective, Hizbullah has a political wing. He said, "And I got in trouble the other day because I said Hizbullah has two parts. First of all, certainly America looks at it as a terrorist organization. So Hizbullah, terrorist organization, same sentence – I'm saying it. That's what it is. However, in Lebanon, it's a political party. So, in Lebanon you have 13 to 15 parliamentary participants. That's Hizbullah the political party, one of the parties that represents the Shias along with the Amal party. And you have Hizbullah the militant group, which we think is backed by Iran, which is the foreign terrorist organization, which we have issues with. The process of Hizbullah putting their arms down starts with the Lebanese government process. They have to – and the council of ministers – have to authorize that mandate and that act, and Hizballah itself, the political party, has to agree to that…"[6]
Barrack: "I Can't Answer" Whether The U.S. Will Remove Hizbullah From Its Terror List
Furthermore, Barrack did not rule out the possibility that the U.S. would remove Hizbullah from its terror list if it decided to disarm and become a regular Lebanese political party – which the U.S. administration has already done for Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham that today rules Syria. Asked at a press conference about this, Barrack replied, "It's a great question, and I'm not running from the answer, but I can't answer it."[7]
Barrack: Hizbullah Will Hand Over Only Its Heavy Arms, And Consensually
Along with accepting Hizbullah as a legitimate political element, Barrack drew back from the U.S. position in the matter of disarming Hizbullah.
In the past few months, the U.S. has been strongly pressuring the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah across the country, in accordance with the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement that came into effect on November 27, 2024. But it is clear that this position has also changed somewhat since Barrack was placed in charge of the Lebanon portfolio.
During his first official Lebanon visit, on June 19, 2025, Barrack handed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun a document that, according to reports in the Lebanese and Arab media, included a road map for Lebanon's future. Along with demands for economic reform and normalization with Syria, it also included a demand for Hizbullah's disarmament throughout the country.[8]
At a July 11 press conference in New York, Barrack clarified that Hizbullah must consent to its disarmament – that is, the process must be coordinated with it and approved by it, not imposed on it. He said, "The process of Hizbullah putting their arms down starts with the Lebanese government process. They have to – and the council of ministers – have to authorize that mandate, and that act, and Hizbullah itself, the political party, has to agree to that."[9]
Also at the July 11 press conference, he underlined the demand that Hizullah hand over only its heavy weapons and not its light weapons, noting that the organization must agree "over a time period to forego its major weapons, right – everybody in Lebanon is packing a 357 Magnum. I mean, it's like having a belt. So we're not talking about small arms. We're talking about the weapons that could affect Israel."[10]
These statements are in line also with a report published by the Lebanese daily Al-Mudun in early July, which said that according to the road map presented by Barrack to the Lebanese government, Hizbullah must lay down its heavy weapons – missiles and drones – as Israel withdraws from the areas in southern Lebanon that it controls.[11] This too is a withdrawal from the U.S. position, which up until now has called on the Lebanese government to completely disarm Hizbullah across Lebanon, without connection to an Israeli withdrawal.
Hizbullah: We Make No Distinction Between A Political And A Military Wing; We Are One Organization With One Leadership
It should be noted that, contrary to the remarks made by U.S. Envoy Barrack, Hizbullah itself denies that there is any distinction between its political and its military wings. In an interview with the Lebanese Al-Nahar daily that was published on July 11, 2025, Ihab Hamadeh, a Hizbullah MP, said: "Hizbullah does not have two wings. It is one organization with one leadership."[12]
Similarly, in June 2013, about a month before the EU decision to add Hizbullah's military wing to the list of terrorist organizations, Na'im Qassem, who is currently Hizbullah's secretary-general, mocked the distinction between the organization's military and political wings, saying: "We do not have a military arm and another [arm] that is political. These Europeans are making themselves ridiculous… They are manipulating their own peoples [by saying] that they are conducting a dialogue with [Hizbullah's] politicians rather than with members of [its] military [arm]. They have forgotten that for us, every child is both a military man and a politician."[13]
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Shafaq News
5 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Iraqi Parliament postpones vote on PMF Law
Shafaq News – Baghdad A draft Law revising the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) structure was submitted to Iraq's Parliament, but the vote was delayed, an Iraqi lawmaker reported to Shafaq News on Saturday. MP Ali Al-Bandawi confirmed that the Iraqi Parliament's Security and Defense Committee finalized changes to the PMF legislation, also known as the PMF Authority Law, highlighting that a draft will be submitted to the Parliament Presidency to schedule a vote. A document further showed that Committee Chairman Kareem Alawi referred the bill to the Parliament Presidency for inclusion on today's session agenda. However, the parliamentary media office postponed the session, citing a lack of quorum. Earlier, State of Law Coalition member Hussein al-Maliki ruled out passing the measure during the current term, citing political opposition inside Iraq and a clear US veto. 'Iraqi political forces won't override the American opposition,' he said. The United States opposes the Law, fearing it would institutionalize the PMF as an independent force separate from the Iraqi army and legitimize groups Washington classifies as terrorist organizations. The Iraqi Parliament approved the original PMF statute in 2016, but lacked detailed provisions for structure and integration. The new draft aims to define the group's status within Iraq's national security framework. The PMF was formed in mid-2014 after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called for collective mobilization to counter ISIS following Mosul's fall. Thousands of volunteers, including fighters from established Shiite factions, answered the call.


Memri
a day ago
- Memri
The Plain Truth II
"Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." – then Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig President Donald Trump, former Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig, and Admiral James Stavridis (ret.) The last vote in Congress about military aid to Israel demonstrated that truth: 422-6 voted for supporting Israel, even Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.[1] The same assessment was expressed and further emphasized by Chairman Admiral James Stavridis, USN (ret.), whose posts throughout his career included Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and that of leading United States Southern Command. Stavridis wrote: "American General Alexander Haig famously made the case for Israel as 'the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk,' but Israel's value as a partner is manifold. While its geostrategic position makes Israel valuable for projecting U.S. power in the Middle East, more crucially it projects its own power in service of mutual interests and assumes its fair share of burdens in doing so. This is near-unique among U.S. allies, and increasingly important amid growing regional threats and Americans' reticence for overseas involvement."[2] It is not AIPAC's support of legislators' campaigns that impacts their vote, as anitsemites say. Rather, it is the chance that AIPAC gets to talk to representatives face-to-face in private about what Israel means for America. Israel and its citizens are the only ones in the whole pro-American camp that will never betray American interests but rather go along with American interests since they are her own strategic and military interests. It is the only state where an American soldier is embraced in any home. It is even a little America in the Middle East far from the mainland U.S. Like Hawaii but in a region basically hostile to America. MAGA isolationists claim that America bombed the Iranian nuclear sites for Israel and that the war was not America's war. They claim that billions granted to Israel were not justified and that America's support of Israel risked embroiling it in regional wars again. They ignore the following facts, probably on purpose: Iran's hatred of America is many decades old – since the 1979 Islamic revolution almost 50 years ago: "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" went together. The new regime of the ayatollahs' regime seized the American Embassy and held Americans hostages for 444 days. The U.S. military suffered hundreds of fatalities as a result of direct Iranian terrorism and many more by Iranian proxies. The Ayatollahs' regime destabilized the Middle East and weakened America's Arab allies – recently it even threatened to assassinate President Trump. Iran is threatening America with its ICBM power that can reach the United States. Their efforts to develop nuclear weapons are a threat to the whole free world. Iran's Houthi proxies harm the east-west maritime passage and thereby the economy of the West – and that of Israel as well, but only partially. Israel's attack on Iran was to defend itself but given the above-mentioned facts, it was at the same time for America. To claim that without Israel, America would not have any problem with Iran, as MAGA isolationists imply in their discourse, is totally false. The B-2 bombing of the nuclear facilities was to affirm the American principle set by President Trump as the leader of the free world that a regime like that of the Ayatollahs cannot have nuclear weapons. This principle was not set for Israel. It was set to counter the strategic danger emanating from a jihadist regime that seeks to export its revolution to the whole world and impose it. That is why the support for Israel in the Congress has always been bipartisan. In the end, the only arguments MAGA isolationists can raise against President Trump's support for Israel are antisemitic and not based on logic or American strategic considerations as expressed by General Haig and Admiral Stravidis. * Yigal Carmon is Founder and President of MEMRI.


Shafaq News
a day ago
- Shafaq News
War is possible again: Lebanon's ongoing negotiations on Hezbollah's arsenal
Shafaq News After months of political back-and-forth, the issue of Hezbollah's weapons has become increasingly central in both domestic Lebanese discourse and international positioning. With time running short and diplomatic options narrowing, the debate is intensifying, signaling the potential for renewed escalation. Limited Diplomatic Window Many observers note that the possibility of removing the Lebanon file from US Syria envoy Tom Barrack is unlikely to alter Washington's or Tel Aviv's longstanding demands regarding Hezbollah's disarmament. Speculation surrounding the possible reappointment of former envoy Morgan Ortagus—known for her vocal support of Israel—has further fueled concerns about a diminishing diplomatic posture by the US in handling Lebanon's complex political and security landscape. Meanwhile, Hezbollah remains adamant about retaining its arsenal for the foreseeable future. In contrast, key international actors, led by the United States, continue to demand concrete steps toward consolidating state control over all weapons. This outlook is reinforced by a series of high-profile public statements that suggest the window for political resolution is rapidly closing. Diverging Rhetoric: Aoun's Appeal Versus Hezbollah's Defiance The Lebanese President Joseph Aoun issued a direct appeal to Hezbollah, calling for the group to hand over its weapons 'today rather than tomorrow,' framing the issue in existential terms, 'to liberate occupied territories, rebuild the state, restore international trust in Lebanon, and prevent further national collapse.' Aoun emphasized that the sacrifices of Lebanon's martyrs must not be in vain. Hezbollah's leadership, however, is far from the President's appeal. The Secretary-General Naim Qassem reiterated that disarmament is not on the table. He warned against reducing Lebanon to 'an Israeli annex,' regardless of the cost, and instead emphasized other priorities—including reconstruction efforts following the Israeli war and halting Israeli attacks. 'End the aggression and free the prisoners; only then can we have a serious discussion,' Qassem declared, dismissing any calls—domestic or foreign—for disarmament as serving 'the Israeli project,' and argued that Israel's ambitions extended beyond disputed border points, warning that disarming the resistance would pave the way for Israeli expansionism inside Lebanon. Despite the apparent contradiction between Aoun and Hezbollah, political sources suggest that a quiet but constructive dialogue is ongoing between the two sides. This conversation is expected to culminate in a government session that will formally address the state's monopoly over arms. Negotiations, Not Disarmament—For Now Lebanese political analyst Qassem Qassir told Shafaq News that disarmament is not currently on the agenda. He confirmed that negotiations between Hezbollah and the presidency continue, but stressed that any meaningful discussion about Hezbollah's weapons hinges on several non-negotiable conditions: ending Israeli aggression, withdrawing from Lebanese territory, releasing prisoners, and initiating reconstruction. 'These are firm and clear positions,' Qassir said. 'Any consideration of limiting arms to the state can only follow the fulfillment of these demands.' Qassir also emphasized that Hezbollah's heavy missiles and drones constitute 'a point of strength for Lebanon,' forming a strategic deterrent against Israel. 'These capabilities cannot be relinquished without assurances for their protection.' He further warned that the US and Israel do not merely seek Hezbollah's disarmament, but rather its destruction—whether those weapons are held by the party or the Lebanese Army. 'Israel may use the pretext of disarmament to justify a new war on Lebanon,' he cautioned. While internal discussions have floated the idea of placing Hezbollah's arms under unofficial state authority, Qassir concluded that no concrete steps have been taken by the Lebanese state toward actual disarmament. What is unfolding, he said, remains confined to preliminary consultations and general understandings. Israel Rejects Lebanese Initiative, Heightening Risks of Escalation With diplomacy faltering, many in Lebanon fear that an escalation is inevitable—possibly resembling the recent conflict that ended with a ceasefire agreement on November 27. Two developments in particular are fueling these fears. First is the continued pattern of Israeli airstrikes and targeted assassinations, concentrated in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Second is a report by Reuters, citing five diplomatic sources, stating that Israel rejected a proposal from Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. The proposal had sought a halt to Israeli airstrikes as a first step toward fully implementing the ceasefire agreement. Israel has issued neither confirmation nor denial of the report. Potential Political Fallout? Beyond the battlefield risks, internal political repercussions also loom. Despite Hezbollah's entrenched role in the Lebanese government, ongoing external pressure and internal divisions over its weapons could reshape the very structure of governance. This unresolved contradiction—between Hezbollah's strategic doctrine and growing international insistence on state sovereignty—has yet to reach a breaking point. But the signals from all sides suggest that the margin for ambiguity is rapidly narrowing.