Afrasianet - Laila Nicolas - Since the November 2024 ceasefire, the U.S. role has shifted to  that of "coordinator-manager" who seeks to ensure Israel's tactical superiority without detonating war, and to keep Lebanon under the roof of surveillance and control.

Israeli Kan TV quoted Israeli officials as saying that American officers are currently inside the headquarters of the Northern Command in Safed, and are following up on operations on Lebanon moment by moment, which means that military operations in Lebanon are being carried out in coordination with the Americans.

In recent months, the U.S. role in Lebanon has undergone a qualitative shift, moving from the position of "diplomatic mediator" that seeks to contain the escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, to the position of "direct partner" in managing the balance of power on the Lebanese-Israeli front, where the United States seeks to arrange the components of the regional sub-system (especially in the Arab Mashreq) to conform to its broader regional architecture in the expanded Middle East, which extends from Iran to the Arab Maghreb, passing through the Gulf.

Since the announcement of the ceasefire in Gaza, the U.S. role has begun to take on a more engaging field and strategic character, which can be read in four interrelated tracks:

1. Deterrence Engineering and Transition to "System Management"

The presence of American units on the ground in Safed, the American administration of the Ceasefire Committee (the mechanism), the presence of American soldiers on the Gaza Strip's border, and American visits to maintain calm in Gaza, reflect the transition of the Americans from the position of observer to "regime manager." The United States is no longer satisfied with supporting Israel politically, militarily, and intelligence, but has become an active party in regulating the rules of engagement and monitoring the ceasefire. 

This role goes beyond the traditional concept of "crisis management" to "strategic environment engineering" itself, where the superpower dictates the rules of the game and determines what is allowed and what is not. 

Through a military and diplomatic presence, threats of repercussions, and pressure on Lebanon to negotiate directly, the United States is exercising a form of "proxy deterrence," raising the expected cost of the Lebanese refraining from submitting to U.S. conditions and disarming Hezbollah, and ensuring that tension remains under U.S. control.

2. Coercive diplomacy 

The United States' approach to Lebanon adopts what is known in the international relations literature as "coercive diplomacy," that is, a combination of negotiation and pressure to achieve political goals without resorting to war.

The United States, through its envoys (Tom Barak and Morgan Ortagus), seeks to impose a new negotiating rhythm on Lebanon, so that talks on border demarcation or the implementation of Resolution 1701 are not only a Lebanese-Israeli affair, but part of a broader American vision. This negotiating track does not reflect traditional mediation, but rather the implicit threat of force, war, and the payment of a heavy price (in Tom Brock's words) are used to push Lebanon to accept Israeli-American conditions. 

3. Threat as a Strategy of Dominance

In the eyes of the Americans, Lebanon is still part of a U.S.-Israeli strategy to reduce Iran's influence and end the axis of resistance. From this perspective, the Americans' balancing act between Israel and Hezbollah serves the strategy of "threat management," not elimination. This strategy indicates that the United States does not want an all-out war, but at the same time it does not seek actual peace in Lebanon at the moment; rather, it prefers a calculated state of tension.

This intended balance falls within what international relations theorists call "indirect hegemony," in which the hegemonic power keeps the regional order in a state of calculated tension that allows it to control the pace and trends of the conflict.

This approach turns Lebanon into a "leverage card" in broader regional files, a classic model of indirect domination, in which a weak state is used as a tool in a regional and global power struggle.

4. Consciousness Engineering as a Tool for Hegemony

Currently, a fierce psychological and media war is being waged on Lebanon that meets the Israeli aggression that has been going on since the ceasefire, where the Lebanese are threatened with a major Israeli war, sanctions and isolation and siege if Hezbollah is not disarmed, which is an Israeli goal and a condition for the start of the negotiation process. This type of discourse aims to create what Antonio Gramsci calls the "hegemonic moment," that is, the moment when the conditions of great power become socially accepted as "choice" realistic" or "logical".

Thus, U.S. conditions in Lebanon are presented as "reasonable" or "the only realistic option," knowing that the Americans seek to manage public consciousness through a dual discourse: a declaration of support for stability in Lebanon, with practical coverage of Israeli strikes and a "defensive response." This policy aims to keep the Lebanese environment in constant confusion and pressure, making acceptance of any Washington-sponsored settlement "realistic and required," thereby subordinating the Lebanese to Israeli conditions.

In summary, since the November 2024 ceasefire, the U.S. role has shifted to that of the "coordinator-manager" that seeks to ensure Israel's tactical superiority without triggering a war, and to keep Lebanon under the roof of surveillance and control to achieve what can be called "dependent stability," a stability that is made and managed from the outside, which serves U.S. geopolitical interests and maintains Israel's regional hegemony, without necessarily serving the interests of the Lebanese or achieving a just and sustainable peace.