The Declared Coup and Immediate Deterrence: Washington Confronts Hezbollah with Its Final Choices

Policy Paper by Dr. Mohamad Qawwas, Progress Center for Policies

Executive Summary

-Washington’s immediate response reveals a Lebanon-specific strategy that has become independent from the Iran file and is now among the priorities of the Trump administration.
-The response came to deter Hezbollah’s threat of a coup against the Lebanese state, and to declare full support for the institutions of the presidency, government, and army in Beirut.
-The response accompanied a wave of sanctions targeting officers in the army and security services, aimed at striking Hezbollah’s “state within a state” inside the Lebanese state.
-The response came to support the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations under Washington’s sponsorship and to prevent Hezbollah from sabotaging them.
-The response was immediate and firm, coinciding with fierce criticism from within the United States against leaked details of the Washington-Tehran agreement.

Introduction
Hours after Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem delivered a speech threatening to bring down the state if it did not reverse its decisions regarding the “exclusive right of the state to bear arms” and direct negotiations with Israel, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded with threats against the group, declaring his country’s support for the Lebanese state. What prompted an American intervention at the level of the Secretary of State himself, and what is the connection between the American intervention in responding to Qassem’s positions — positions he had repeatedly voiced before — and the possibility of Washington and Tehran reaching a framework agreement to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation?

Qassem: The Threat to Bring Down the State
On May 24, 2026, Naim Qassem, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, delivered a speech that provoked an American reaction. The speech came in the context of ongoing confrontations in Lebanon, Israel’s expansion of its attacks on Hezbollah positions and villages south and north of the Litani River, and in response to the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations taking place under American sponsorship and with particular interest from President Donald Trump.

Qassem made the following points in his speech:

-Hezbollah’s categorical rejection of direct negotiations between the Lebanese government and Israel, describing them as “an American-Israeli project aimed at handing Lebanon over and stripping it of its defensive capability.”
-A call to take to the streets and bring down the government if it continued on this path, saying that “the people have the right to take to the streets and bring down the government in confrontation with this project.”
-Affirmation of the continuation of “resistance” despite the ceasefire, and rejection of surrendering weapons as long as Israeli aggressions and occupation persisted.
-Linking any disarmament to “a complete halt to aggression and a full Israeli withdrawal,” implicitly threatening chaos or an internal confrontation if the state attempted to impose its sovereignty.
-Expression of hope that any American-Iranian agreement would include Lebanon.

Observers considered the speech to have deliberate timing and messaging, as the group continued to position itself above the Lebanese state and retain the right to use internal violence to preserve its weapons. They also saw in the speech Iran’s declaration of intent to preserve its “arm” in Lebanon as a regional pressure card, especially with the possible conclusion of a framework agreement with Washington approaching. They further noted that the tone of Qassem’s speech came hours after he received a message of support from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi pledging not to abandon “support for movements demanding rights and freedom, foremost among them Hezbollah.”

Washington: Confronting the “Deep State”
Just three days before Qassem’s speech, the US Treasury Department imposed notable sanctions on nine individuals in Lebanon in an unprecedented move. The sanctions included:

-Four Hezbollah parliamentarians accused of reorganizing the group’s administrative structure to preserve its armed presence.
-Figures close to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri within the Amal movement.
-Two Lebanese Army officers and others in the security services accused of providing logistical support to Hezbollah and obstructing its disarmament.
-Iran’s designated ambassador to Lebanon, whose appointment Beirut had not accepted.

Washington described these individuals as obstructing the peace process and maintaining Hezbollah’s influence within state institutions. The sanctions came to strike what was termed the “deep state” that enables the group’s control, and to support disarmament efforts.

Analysts considered the sanctions to mean:

A transition by the United States from rhetoric to action in Washington’s foreign policy toward confronting Hezbollah independently from the conflict with Iran.

Targeting the “deep state” in Lebanon in order to sever the links between Hezbollah and official institutions, especially the army, which is supposed to be the guarantor of sovereignty.

A direct warning to Berri and his movement (Amal) against continuing their alliance with the group.
Pushing elements within the army to commit to the state and deterring them from submitting to the group’s dominance, which has controlled the political and security system in Lebanon since the withdrawal of the Syrian army in 2005.

Rubio: The Immediate Response
On the same day as Qassem’s speech (May 24), Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a strongly worded statement containing the following points:
-He condemned “in the strongest terms” the “reckless” call by Hezbollah to bring down the democratically elected government.
-He said that “Hezbollah has ignored repeated calls from the legitimate government to halt attacks and respect the ceasefire, and instead continued firing and transferring fighters and weapons south of the Litani. This is a deliberate campaign to destabilize the country.”
-He added that the government was working on recovery and reconstruction with full American support, while Hezbollah was dragging Lebanon into “chaos and destruction.”
-He affirmed that “threats of violence and overthrow will not succeed,” and that “the era of holding an entire state hostage by a terrorist group is approaching its end.”

Analysts considered the American response, in this immediate form, to come in the following contexts:

-Linking Qassem’s threats to American efforts to strike the support network within the state (including the army, security services, and Berri’s associates).
-Supporting the legitimate allies represented by the state in its presidential, governmental, military, and security pillars.
-Rejection of continuing to accept the presence of illegal militias and proxies, as well as rejection of American-international coexistence with the “exception” in Lebanon.
-Sending a message to Iran in the context of the possible agreement with the United States, rejecting recognition of proxy arms and confronting them even if the framework agreement did not address the matter.

The Negotiations and Support for Beirut
Analyses consider that Rubio’s statements and the American sanctions against the “deep state” reinforce the momentum of the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations that the State Department hosted with Rubio personally present, while the White House also hosted one of its sessions with President Donald Trump in attendance.

Those negotiations aim, according to statements from Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, to achieve a permanent ceasefire, a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army alongside the disarmament of Hezbollah in the south.

Analyses also hold that the speed of the American response through Rubio provides the government with international cover to confront internal pressure, and deters any possible coup along the lines of what the group did on May 7, 2008, and what it subsequently imposed on the political system through the Doha Agreement on the 21st of the same month.

Some assessments suggest that Washington’s immediate stance against Hezbollah’s leader — and its support for the Lebanese state — may be a prelude to opening the door to greater American support, whether military aid to the army or reconstruction project funding conditioned on disarmament.

Sources also suggest that in addition to increased military and intelligence support for the army, additional sanctions may be imposed on the “Qard al-Hasan” institution and Hezbollah’s private financing networks, alongside diplomatic and economic support for the government, and measures to prevent a Hezbollah coup or the occurrence of chaos that could exploit any Iranian agreement.

Sources add that the American shifts regarding Lebanon align with Washington’s strategy of supporting the building of a strong Lebanese state capable of containing Hezbollah, with the aim of Lebanon emerging from Iranian influence in parallel with Syria’s exit from that influence.

Conclusions

The immediacy of Washington’s response in dealing with Hezbollah’s threats is unprecedented in its direct character from a major power in dealing with a specific party within Lebanon.

The response represents an intervention that goes beyond diplomacy, aimed at deterring the group from carrying out a “coup” that its secretary-general has threatened, along the lines of the coup that took place in 2008.

Rubio’s response against Hezbollah as Iran’s most prominent “arm” in the region sends a message to Tehran rejecting the continuation of Iran’s relationship with its proxies, even if the American-Iranian framework agreement does not address the matter.

Although Qassem expressed hope that Lebanon would be included in the agreement, Rubio affirms that any deal will require the dismantling or radical reduction of these proxy forces, and rejects linking Lebanon’s war to Iran’s war.
The sanctions targeting army and security officers aim to prevent the state from becoming a cover for Hezbollah and pave the way for support measures to strengthen the state at the expense of the “state within a state.”

Rubio’s response works to prevent the group from exploiting the American-Iranian agreement and viewing it as a breakthrough that consolidates its influence in Lebanon, sending the group a clear message to that effect.
The sanctions — which may be a prelude to another wave targeting army and security officers — aim to push toward “cleansing” the security institution, making it more reliable in implementing the agreement.

Rubio’s response coincided with criticism from influential voices in the American Republican Party regarding leaked details of the agreement with Iran, which prompted Trump and his administration to display hardline positions toward Iran and its proxy in Lebanon.