By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel in Chula Vista, California
In the treacherous arena of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the metaphor of appointing a well-known arsonist to the local fire department vividly illustrates the flaws in Vice President JD Vance’s diplomatic strategy toward Lebanon.
By emphasizing negotiations with Iran as the pathway to de-escalation and pressing Israel for restraint against Hezbollah, Vance’s framework fundamentally misunderstands the threat. Hezbollah is not merely an Iranian proxy—it is Iran, an extension of the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary apparatus operating on Lebanese soil.
As of mid-2026, Iran continues actively enlisting its own personnel to serve in Hezbollah’s military wing, embedding direct Iranian forces into the conflict. If Vance possessed moral clarity on this issue, he would insist unequivocally that Iran remove all of its soldiers from Lebanon, rather than treating Tehran as a potential partner in stabilization.
Vance has publicly touted progress in U.S.-Iran talks over Tehran’s nuclear program, urging Israel to “respect this peace process” and avoid “going wild in Lebanon” in ways that might complicate negotiations. He frames broader regional calm, including adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, as achievable through economic incentives for Iran to act as a “normal country,” while highlighting U.S. aid to Israel and the need for Lebanese sovereignty.
This approach reflects a transactional preference for avoiding prolonged U.S. military commitments. However, it risks empowering the source of Lebanon’s instability while sidelining the legitimate security concerns of Israel and the sovereignty aspirations of many Lebanese.
Lebanese voices seeking sovereignty and peace
Many in the Lebanese government and broader society reject this Iranian dominance and desire genuine state control alongside peaceful relations with Israel. President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and supporting officials have moved assertively—banning unauthorized Hezbollah military activities, expanding Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) presence south of the Litani River, and engaging in direct negotiations with Israel on border security.
Large segments of the Lebanese public, weary of economic ruin and being conscripted into Iran’s regional wars, view Hezbollah’s entanglement as a betrayal of national interests rather than protection.
These reformers prioritize Lebanon’s sovereignty, free from external subversion, and express willingness for arrangements that allow peaceful coexistence with Israel. Empowering the legitimate government via LAF support, economic assistance, and firm pressure on Iranian elements aligns with their goals of recovery without perpetual conflict.
Iran’s direct role: Hezbollah as an extension of Tehran
A core deficiency in Vance’s outlook is insufficient recognition that Hezbollah is not merely an Iranian proxy but effectively Iran itself operating extraterritorially. Tehran provides not only funding, weapons, and strategic direction but actively enlists Iranian personnel to bolster Hezbollah’s military wing in Lebanon. This direct integration transforms the group into an arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ forward deployment, undermining any pretense of Lebanese autonomy.
Iran’s long-standing destabilization strategy—through its “Axis of Resistance”—has hollowed out Lebanese institutions, turning sovereign territory into a launchpad for attacks on Israel at the expense of Lebanese lives and welfare. Past diplomatic overtures and sanctions relief frequently enabled escalated proxy aggression rather than restraint. Treating Iran as a stabilizing interlocutor ignores this reality: the regime benefits from controlled chaos, which distracts from domestic failures, rallies hardliners, and sustains its ideological expansion.
Israeli operations target this threat precisely because Israel does not seek to annex any part of Lebanon. Its objective is straightforward: prevent Hezbollah from cannibalizing Lebanese territory to attack Israel. Any resolution must address this core issue rather than paper over it with high-level talks that grant Tehran continued influence.
The imperative of moral clarity, withdrawal, and avoiding appeasement
If Vance had moral clarity, he would demand that Iran immediately remove all of its soldiers and personnel from Lebanon as a non-negotiable prerequisite for any broader understanding. Instead, prioritizing Iran talks risks weakening Lebanese reformers by legitimizing Tehran’s foothold. It is vital that Vance not cede Lebanese territory in a manner reminiscent of how Western Europe ceded Czechoslovakia to placate the Nazis during the lead-up to World War II. Such appeasement would reward aggression, embolden Iran and its extensions, and betray the very Lebanese reformers striving for independence and peace.
Lebanon’s sovereignty is undermined primarily by Hezbollah’s parallel military infrastructure—which is Iranian in essence—preventing the state from controlling its territory, foreign policy, or defense decisions. Israel’s position reinforces clarity: no territorial ambitions, only the necessity of denying Hezbollah (and by extension Iran) the ability to use Lebanese soil as a base for aggression.
Effective resolution: Strength, sovereignty, and withdrawal first
A clear-eyed policy requires proper sequencing: secure the full withdrawal of Iranian forces and personnel from Lebanon, degrade associated military capabilities, enforce state sovereignty through robust LAF deployment and international support, and only then explore wider diplomatic arrangements with Tehran from a position of demonstrated leverage. History shows that ceasefires lacking verifiable enforcement become intervals for rearmament.
Supporting Lebanon’s internal voices—who represent widespread desire for peace free from Iranian entanglement—offers the soundest path. Many Lebanese officials and citizens explicitly seek to end cycles of violence, reclaim their nation, and establish stable borders with Israel. Vance’s current framework, by elevating engagement with the arsonist, risks prolonging the fire at the expense of victims and legitimate authorities.
The arsonist-firefighter analogy warns against misplaced priorities. For Lebanon to thrive, Israel to achieve security, and the region to stabilize, U.S. policy must confront the direct Iranian presence head-on—insisting on complete withdrawal of its forces—while amplifying Lebanese aspirations for self-determination and peaceful borders. Restraint without moral clarity and resolve against the destabilizer perpetuates conflict rather than resolving it. True diplomacy distinguishes firefighters from those who set—and profit from—the blazes.
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is the spiritual leader at Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, California.