In one of its final acts, the Biden administration has decided to reallocate over $100 million in military aid originally intended for Israel and Egypt to Lebanon. The stated goal? To support a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, a move that has critics raising their eyebrows—and their voices. For many, this last-minute financial shuffle appears to be less about diplomacy and more about trying to cement a legacy of questionable foreign policy. The aid is earmarked for Lebanon’s government and army, which, conveniently enough, have long been accused of operating under the thumb of Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
Breaking down the numbers, $95 million is being redirected from Egypt’s aid package, with an additional $7.5 million pulled from Israel’s support. According to the State Department, this funding will bolster Lebanon’s sovereignty and enhance its counterterrorism capabilities. Sounds noble enough, right? Except for the glaring fact that Lebanon’s army isn’t exactly known for its ability to keep Hezbollah in check. Critics are left wondering how funneling cash to a military that some argue is little more than a Hezbollah proxy is supposed to strengthen regional stability.
For those familiar with U.S. aid to Lebanon, this move feels like déjà vu. Since 2006, over $3 billion has been pumped into Lebanon’s Armed Forces (LAF), always with the promise of creating a “pillar of stability.” Yet, Hezbollah continues to grow its arsenal of rockets and solidify its grip on the country. For conservatives, the irony is palpable. Here’s a country that has effectively become a staging ground for Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel, yet it receives billions in U.S. aid while Israel faces funding cuts. The double standard is hard to ignore.
This most recent $7.5 million diverted from Israel to Lebanon has ignited outrage, particularly among those who see it as yet another example of misplaced priorities. While Israel grapples with the existential threat of Hezbollah’s rocket stockpile, Lebanon is handed a lifeline under the guise of maintaining a ceasefire. The logic of empowering a nation with ties to a terrorist group in the name of counterterrorism is, at best, baffling. At worst, it’s a dangerous misstep that could embolden Hezbollah rather than contain it.
Ultimately, this decision is being viewed as emblematic of the broader failures in U.S. foreign policy under Biden’s leadership. For critics, it’s a classic case of throwing good money after bad in a misguided attempt to placate unstable regions. With President-elect Donald Trump poised to take office and bring a decidedly different approach to Middle Eastern policy, this eleventh-hour reallocation might end up as just another cautionary tale of well-intentioned but poorly executed diplomacy. Whether it’s remembered as a bold move or a colossal blunder, one thing is clear: the debate over U.S. foreign aid priorities isn’t going away anytime soon.
