In a bold move during its final stretch, the Biden administration has decided to reroute over $100 million in military aid from Israel and Egypt to Lebanon, allegedly to support a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah. The decision, disclosed through notices sent to Congress, has drawn sharp criticism from skeptics who view it as yet another misguided attempt to shore up Lebanon’s fragile government—a government many argue is little more than a puppet for Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in all but name.
The reallocation breaks down to $95 million redirected from Egypt and $7.5 million taken from Israel to bankroll Lebanon’s military and government. The State Department has framed this as a bid to enhance Lebanon’s sovereignty, boost border security, and combat terrorism. However, conservatives and foreign policy analysts alike have questioned the wisdom of pouring resources into a nation that operates under Hezbollah’s shadow. After all, funding Lebanon’s military seems a bit like handing a wolf the keys to the henhouse and expecting it to guard the chickens.
This is hardly a new phenomenon. The U.S. has funneled over $3 billion into the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) since 2006, repeatedly painting the LAF as a stabilizing force in the region. Yet, Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon has only grown stronger. With tens of thousands of rockets and a stranglehold over the government, the terrorist group has effectively made a mockery of U.S. attempts at fostering stability. Despite this track record of failure, the Biden administration’s decision to throw even more money at the problem seems to reflect a willful ignorance of history—or, at best, blind optimism.
The most controversial aspect of this move is the $7.5 million diverted from Israel, a nation facing a direct threat from Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets. Conservatives have slammed this decision as not only tone-deaf but outright dangerous. By reallocating funds from one of America’s strongest allies to a country accused of shielding Hezbollah, critics argue the Biden administration is enabling bad actors under the guise of peacebuilding. For many, this reeks of prioritizing optics over substance—a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy that rarely ends well.
Ultimately, this last-minute move serves as a microcosm of broader concerns about U.S. aid strategies in volatile regions. Throwing money at unstable governments under the banner of diplomacy often does little more than embolden the very forces it’s meant to contain. With President-elect Donald Trump preparing to take office and likely to chart a much more hardline course in the Middle East, this reallocation risks being remembered not as a calculated move toward peace but as another chapter in the saga of American taxpayer dollars wasted on wishful thinking.
