The animalistic behavior of US envoys towards Lebanon intensifies 

BEIRUT—In a dangerous escalation that highlights American intimidation against Lebanon, U.S. envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack has unleashed a series of inflammatory statements through his X account, threatening Lebanon with civil war and Israeli aggression if it refuses to normalize relations with Israel under the so-called Abraham Accords.

Barrack’s remarks are not isolated slips of the tongue. They form part of a systematic pattern of coercion and blackmail that reflect the deeply entrenched arrogance of Washington’s diplomacy towards sovereign nations.

Barrack’s message to Lebanon was chillingly clear: submit to Washington’s will and normalize with Tel Aviv or face chaos, collapse, and destruction.
This tone of political thuggery exposes what lies beneath the rhetoric of “peace” and “stability” the U.S. so often parades: a neocolonial project aimed at subjugation, not coexistence.

In one of his earlier interviews with Sky News Arabia, Barrack cynically declared, “There is no such thing as peace. There is one party that wants to control and subjugate others.” 

This blunt confession unmasks the essence of American foreign policy, a philosophy of dominance cloaked in the language of diplomacy. 

His latest threats merely reaffirm that Washington’s vision for Lebanon is not one of partnership but of total obedience to the American-Israeli axis.

Even more alarming, Barrack’s statements effectively undermine the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, casting doubt on Washington’s commitment to any negotiated settlement.

By linking the truce’s continuation to Hezbollah’s disarmament, the U.S. envoy is weaponizing diplomacy itself, transforming peace initiatives into instruments of blackmail. His language has long transcended diplomatic decorum; it has become a direct declaration of economic, political, and military coercion.

According to Barrack’s logic, the Abraham Accords are the new compass of American strategy in the region. Washington views any refusal to normalize with Israel as a defiance of its Middle Eastern blueprint, a challenge to be crushed rather than understood.

Lebanon, therefore, is being positioned as a testing ground for this imperial experiment: a nation coerced through hunger, sanctions, and threats of war until it capitulates.

This is not the first time Barrack has adopted the tone of a colonial overseer. Since his appointment, he has issued at least four explicit threats. 
He once proposed annexing Lebanon to Syria as part of a “regional settlement.” Later, he dismissed the concept of peace entirely, boasting of a plan for control rather than reconciliation. 

On another occasion, he hinted at arming the Lebanese army to fight its “internal opponents”—a barely veiled reference to the Resistance. His latest and most dangerous provocation—warning of civil war if Lebanon does not normalize with Israel—completes a pattern of sustained aggression.

The ultimate goal of this rhetoric is clear: to impose submission. Yet, Barrack and his superiors seem oblivious to Lebanon’s long history of defiance. The Lebanese have faced Israeli occupation, internal strife, and economic siege, but refused to kneel down.

Since 1982, the logic of resistance has been the only force capable of preserving the country’s sovereignty and dignity.

Internally, the Lebanese government’s response remains lukewarm, shackled by an economic crisis largely engineered by the same powers now preaching “reform”.

The Ceasefire Monitoring Committee, supposedly established to ensure stability, has turned into a platform to impose new Israeli conditions without any reciprocal obligations, such as withdrawal from occupied lands or the return of displaced civilians.

Besides, the so-called “step-by-step” policy has failed miserably, as Israel has never sought peace. Israel seeks violent expansionism, full domination, and the erasure of any resistance.

Washington, as the principal sponsor of this charade, bears full responsibility for perpetuating Israeli aggression and sabotaging genuine peace. 

Barrack’s economic threats, too, are hypocritical. Crisis in Lebanon did not begin yesterday. It was orchestrated in 2019 through Washington’s financial blockade and punitive sanctions, which crippled its economy and blocked potential relief from Iranian energy and reconstruction offers.

Meanwhile, Lebanon stands at a crossroads: to yield to the humiliating logic of normalization or to uphold its dignity and independence. The choice, however, is not merely political—it is existential!

A people who once declared, “humiliation is out of our reach,” cannot be forced to choose between starvation and surrender. History has shown that every time external pressure mounts, the Lebanese people’s attachment to resistance only deepens.

Barrack’s animalistic threats will not succeed in taming a nation forged in struggle. The real response lies not in diplomatic complaints but in decisive action—namely, Lebanon’s withdrawal from the failed ceasefire supervision committee and the reaffirmation of a national doctrine that places sovereignty above submission.

Dignity is not a negotiable currency; those who gamble on American protection are, in truth, handing the keys of their homeland to the very hands that seek its destruction!