The latest round of U.S. sanctions on Lebanon has gone beyond targeting politicians and financial networks linked to Hezbollah, reaching instead into the heart of the country’s official security institutions — an unprecedented escalation that reflects a shift in Washington’s approach toward the group and its influence within the Lebanese state.
In a first-of-its-kind move, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on two active-duty officers serving in the Lebanese Army and General Security Directorate, while also targeting lawmakers and senior figures affiliated with Hezbollah and its closest political ally, the Amal Movement. The move appeared to signal a transition from direct pressure on Hezbollah itself to a broader campaign against what Washington sees as the political and security infrastructure enabling the group to preserve its influence within state institutions.
On Thursday, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against nine individuals under counterterrorism authorities. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Hezbollah “is a terrorist organization and must be fully disarmed,” stressing that Washington would continue targeting officials who had “infiltrated the Lebanese government” and enabled the group to sustain its operations and obstruct peace efforts.
Unprecedented Security Targets
The most striking aspect of the sanctions package was its focus on serving security officials. Those sanctioned included Brig. Gen. Khattar Nassereddine, head of the National Security Directorate within Lebanon’s General Security agency, and Col. Samer Hamadeh, head of the Dahieh branch within Lebanese Army Intelligence.
The Treasury Department accused the two officers of providing Hezbollah with significant intelligence over the past year. Analysts described the development as a turning point in relations between Washington and Lebanon’s security establishment, and a clear signal that the “immunity” long enjoyed by the country’s security agencies may no longer apply.
Retired Brig. Gen. George Nader said political interference within Lebanon’s military and security institutions was “well known and no secret,” noting that military appointments allocated to the Shiite quota had for years been shaped by balances tied to Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. Speaking to Alhurra, Nader said successive Lebanese governments had effectively legitimized the formula of “the army, the people and the resistance” through ministerial statements, forcing military institutions to deal with Hezbollah as an established reality.
Message to the “Deep State”
Journalist Imad Chidiac argued that the sanctions were primarily directed at what he described as Lebanon’s “deep state.” He said the designation of a General Security officer who does not hold a highly sensitive executive role underscored the political nature of the sanctions, amid growing U.S. frustration that Lebanese authorities were not moving decisively enough against Hezbollah. According to Chidiac, Washington no longer accepts what he called Lebanon’s policy of “gray-zone positioning.”
Financial crimes researcher Mahasen Morsel described the security officers file as “the most sensitive,” saying sanctions against currently serving officers sent a direct warning to Lebanese security agencies that any cooperation with Hezbollah could place individuals under U.S. scrutiny. She also said the measures carried a message to the Lebanese Army leadership tied to the implementation of post-2024 war security arrangements, particularly concerning weapons south of the Litani River.
Pressure on Berri and Amal
The inclusion of figures tied to the Amal Movement was seen as equally significant. The sanctions targeted Ahmad Baalbaki, known for his close ties to Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, as well as Ali Safawi, the movement’s military official in southern Lebanon.
The Treasury Department said the two men coordinated with Hezbollah on security and military activities, including joint operations against Israel. Analysts noted that it marked the first direct targeting of prominent figures close to Berri since sanctions imposed in 2020 on former minister Ali Hassan Khalil.
The sanctions also included former minister Mohammad Fneish and Hezbollah lawmakers Hassan Fadlallah, Hussein Hajj Hassan and Ibrahim Mousawi. The Treasury said the individuals had acted directly or indirectly on Hezbollah’s behalf or under its direction. Also designated was Mohammad Reza Sheibani, Iran’s ambassador-designate to Lebanon.
Nader said the sanctions were intended to push Berri toward cooperating on efforts to disarm Hezbollah and remove political cover for the group. Morsel said Berri was facing mounting domestic and international pressure, noting that he had hoped to stabilize the ceasefire first before moving to negotiations, while the U.S. administration appeared determined to prioritize negotiations immediately.
She added that the sanctions reflected Washington’s insistence on treating Hezbollah’s political and military wings as inseparable. Chidiac, meanwhile, argued that Berri’s longstanding strategy of “managing contradictions” had reached its limit, with room for maneuver narrower than ever.
Pressure Ahead of Negotiations
The timing of the sanctions was also notable. They came amid growing U.S. pressure on Lebanon over Hezbollah’s disarmament and ongoing U.S.-mediated negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.
Chidiac said the sanctions, announced on the eve of political and security meetings, were closely tied to the negotiation track and formed part of a broader pressure campaign aimed at pushing Lebanese actors toward clearer positions. He argued that following the 2024 war and ceasefire, more decisive steps should have been taken by Berri and the Lebanese military establishment regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, adding that continued delay had placed Amal and the security services — particularly the Lebanese Army — under direct pressure.
Nader, however, viewed the timing as a U.S. and Israeli pressure tactic designed to weaken Lebanon’s negotiating position ahead of talks. He expressed pessimism about the prospects for successful negotiations, arguing that “the side negotiating is not the same side fighting,” in reference to the divide between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah.
Lebanese and Iranian Responses
In response to the Treasury statement, the Lebanese Army said all officers and personnel carried out their duties “with professionalism, responsibility and discipline” in accordance with directives issued by the military leadership. The army stressed that soldiers’ loyalty was solely to the military institution and the Lebanese state, and that they fulfilled their duties free from outside pressure or influence.
Hezbollah, meanwhile, described the targeting of army and General Security officers as an attempt to subordinate Lebanon’s security institutions to “American tutelage.” The Amal Movement called the sanctions “unacceptable and unjustified,” saying they targeted the movement and its political role.
Beyond Financial Penalties
According to Morsel, the sanctions extend well beyond their political symbolism. In addition to freezing any assets held in the United States and prohibiting Americans from dealing with those designated, the measures are likely to push banks and international institutions to avoid any dealings with them for fear of secondary sanctions, effectively placing them under broad financial and political isolation.
Chidiac warned that the sanctions could pave the way for stripping political and security cover from figures Washington and Israel regard as part of Hezbollah’s support environment. He predicted mounting U.S. pressure if the Lebanese state failed to take steps Washington considers consistent with efforts to rebuild the state and advance a broader settlement process.
What appears increasingly clear is that Washington is no longer targeting Hezbollah solely as an organization, but also the political and security architecture that allows it to remain a dominant force within the Lebanese state.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
