The U.S. Foreign Policy towards Hezbollah. Research Paper

The U.S. Foreign Policy towards Hezbollah
Name
Institution
Due Date
The U.S. Foreign Policy towards Hezbollah
Introduction
The Lebanese Hezbollah was founded over thirty years ago, in the early 1980s, and is one of the most powerful and considered dangerous rebel or terrorist groups in the Middle East. However, the Syrian civil war has transformed the group through undermining its position in Lebanon, therefore, altering its objectives within the region by tarnishing its name within the Middle East. Importantly, the group remains a major threat to the United States and Israel in particular. Apparently, Hezbollah is considered as having less interest in directly clashing with the United States. Despite the group’s close ties with Iran and the ever-increasing ideological opposition towards the U.S. role in the Middle East are factors worthy of consideration. Further, the group supports various local terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria as well as Palestine all of which provide direct opposition towards the U.S. interests within the Middle East. The Lebanese Hezbollah have thrived and survived numerous challenges from its authority and the very existence. The challenges have made Hezbollah rise as one of the strongest political and military organization within Lebanon. Hezbollah is known as a terrorist group but also does several other duties. These duties include being a social welfare agency, a quasi-state military, a part of the Lebanese government and also a political party (Ash, 2010).
The United States’ engagement with Hezbollah resulted from the ripple effect the emanated from Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (Benson & Truman, 1997). The Israel objective was focused on defeating the PLO and ultimately secures its northern border from any form of a terrorist attack. In this case, the first portion of the objective was achievable as compared to the latter objective. Comparatively, the U.S. military efforts in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, proved successful from the initial stages in defeating the PLO, however, the Israeli military did not succeed in devising a solid exit strategy, therefore, counterproductively expanding their limited scope of the objective. This led the U.S. to enter Lebanon as part of an international force in an attempt to help in ending up the conflict. Unfortunately, in the month of April 1983 close to sixty-three people died following the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut which was later followed by the killing of 241 Marines bombed at Beirut barracks. However, most of the attacks took place before the intelligence units even discovered the new terrorist threat that existed (Goldman, 2015). Tactfully, Hezbollah was considered to be very effective since neither Israel nor the U.S. expected the group to use suicide bombings.
The U.S. Counterterrorism Policy on Hezbollah
Hezbollah underscored by their significant strikes against U.S. targets within Lebanon in the 1980s escalated the interest of the U.S. in defeating and eliminating the group (Naseer & Carroll, 1985). The group assisted several terrorist attacks against various U.S. bases abroad on a frequent basis. However, the hardest question stems from what defeating the group really entails. The fact of attempting to render the group nonexistent is almost unlikely while the objective of trying to counter their engagement in terrorist activities internationally seems achievable (Brown, 2013). The United States and Israel have conducted counter-terrorism actions against Hezbollah since the formation of the group. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli intelligence have since then used intelligence to target the leadership of the Hezbollah. In the year 1996, the United States implemented an Act on Antiterrorism and Death Penalty which was key in helping the United States fight the group’s global operations. Then there was the aspect of either convicting or deporting Hezbollah operatives as well as supporters for menial offenses. This idea was considered fairly successful since it helped reduce Hezbollah’s global communication network. Further, the occurrence of defeat on Hezbollah through the counterterrorism policy calls for a solid understanding as well as a thorough analysis of the group’s nature of formation and strength. Additionally, the aspect of the analysis of the previous counterterrorism actions is also crucial.
The deployment of the UN peacekeepers since 2006 along the border with Israel has made it difficult for the group to have the massive presence it enjoyed before the war. However, the group has built sites for war such as bankers and underground rocket platforms further away from the border close to River Litani. However, the activities along the border have been surprisingly quiet over time. The group’s involvement in the Syrian civil war makes the group a little careful in its approach towards war with Israel. The counterinsurgency operations done by Israel would make it very difficult for the group adjusting to the highly sophisticated military firepower that the Israel military would descend into battle with the group (Georges, 2018). In the event that there is a collapse of the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, and the possibility of the U.S. attacking the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, it would make Hezbollah attack Israel as part of the response from an ally. Similarly, in the event that there is an increase in tension between U.S. and \Iran, there are high expectations that Hezbollah may stand with Iran; therefore, try to drag Israel into the conflict. The group would undertake such action in their attempt to delegitimize any form of United States response. However, the group has been very cautious about any direct confrontation with the U.S. since the United States’ withdrawal from Lebanon conflict. Despite this, Hezbollah has elaborately supported any anti-U.S. responses within the Middle East (Deeb, 2006).
Policy on Building Stronger Relationships with Allies
The United States policy towards Hezbollah revolves around building a stronger relationship with Israel. According to Benson (1997), in his article asserts that the U.S. assistance to the Jewish State is essential towards a maximalist strategy that focuses on preventing the extension of the Influence of Soviet within the Middle East. The relations of the U.S. and Israel is based on a combination of various aspect that includes democracy, respect to human rights, values shared on the basic freedom issues, the differences that emerge from the rule of law and the Judeo-Christian traditions. The underpinning of these relations with Israel gives the United States the position to handle Hezbollah based on objectives such as disarmament, the transfer of arms termination, as well as full control of the Lebanese government over their territory. These objectives focus on ending Hezbollah’s influence within the state of Lebanon. However, the aspect of trying to usurp Hezbollah’s political powers within Lebanon has rather proved challenging.
The United States faces a dilemma especially in Syria and Lebanon concerning the Hezbollah group. In this case, Washington does not in any way support Hezbollah’s national or regional growth within the Middle East countries (Bissat, 2002). The group is considered one of the formidable allies of the Islamic State amidst the U.S. trying to war against the group in Syria alongside trying to stop the spread of violence in Lebanon. According to the former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the group presents a growing threat to the United States on the horizon. In this case, one of the achievable counterterrorism strategies for the U.S. may entail effective deterring of the group from getting involved in terrorist activities (Brown). Such counterterrorism mechanisms have been explored in collaboration with Israel at various levels that include military, diplomacy as well as political spectrums. Operationally, the U.S. maintains the strategy of active defense as had been coined by President Reagan. However, the whole process as applicable by the U.S. in an attempt to address the threat from the Hezbollah can only be termed as passive and reactionary since the U.S. Policy towards Hezbollah entails a broader perspective that involves the entire Middle East diplomatic policy. It is important to note that the U.S. efforts in countering terrorism in the Middle East countries provide a challenge towards actively singling out and countering Hezbollah (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2013).
The other active policy has involved the financial front, whereby, the group’s financial front within the global network remains a target (Levitt, 2017). This is applicable hand in hand with limiting the group’s influence through various diplomatic coercion. The policy of targeting Hezbollah’s finances was progressive, especially after the 9/11 attacks. In this case, there were some disruptions of the U.S. cells that ensured thorough dismantling of Hezbollah’s operations in some regions such as South America and Africa. There were elaborate reports by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on their efforts towards disrupting the group’s financial networks in South America in the years from 2004 to 2008. The reports also included disruption of other networks in Africa especially in 2009. Such actions clearly reveal the intention of the U.S. towards expanding the counter-terrorism efforts against the group. Some of the actions applied by the U.S. included arrests as well as asset seizures (Levitt, 2017).
As previously discussed the U.S. involvement in the building of Lebanese Military and strengthening the Lebanese State should be a priority. This is since the aspect of strengthening the Lebanese military would ensure that the major support system for Hezbollah is undermined. This would readily provide the government with strength towards resisting Hezbollah&...