Army Denies Alleged ‘National Officers’ Statement Reported by Local Newspaper

The Lebanese army on Thursday denied the authenticity of a purported statement attributed to a group calling itself the “National Officers,” after a local newspaper reported internal tensions within the military amid political debate over the future of the army’s leadership.

In a statement, the army command said claims published in the report regarding army officers were “completely false,” stressing that members of the military remain committed solely to loyalty to the institution and to the nation.

“The statement in question has no connection whatsoever to the army,” the command said.

The clarification came after the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar reported that mounting pressure from the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia on President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to dismiss Army Commander Rodolph Haykal.

However, the report said a strong opposing view emerged warning against dismissing the army chief, arguing that such a move would not only deal a major blow to the current presidential term and pose a serious challenge to the government, but could also have unpredictable repercussions within the military institution itself that might exceed the expectations of the foreign actors pressing for the step.

Ministerial sources quoted by the newspaper said the president moved to withdraw the issue from discussion, stressing that he was the most familiar among Lebanon’s leaders with the realities of the army. While backing government decisions aimed at banning the resistance and confiscating its weapons, the president reportedly warned that pushing the army into an internal confrontation could trigger a major crisis and paralyze the institution.

The sources added that when discussions reached the point of proposing three names as potential successors to Haykal, the president intervened directly after receiving indications from within the army that a number of officers were dissatisfied with the idea of removing their commander.

According to the report, further inquiries suggested these reactions had not been prompted by the army chief himself but had arisen from individual initiatives by officers who appeared divided into two camps.

One group reportedly threatened to resign from the army if Haykal were dismissed, arguing that such a move would be seen within the institution as an unjustified punitive measure against the commander.

A second group was said to have been more outspoken in opposing the government’s broader decisions. The report described this camp as including a significant bloc of officers who warned that pushing the army into confrontation with a major component of Lebanese society would effectively place the military on a path toward internal division and polarization, potentially undermining its unity and its national legitimacy.

Despite efforts to contain the debate, some senior officers who believed that plans to push the army into confrontation with Hezbollah had merely been frozen rather than abandoned concluded that they needed to send a warning message to the political leadership.

The report said these officers held a series of meetings and consultations before agreeing to draft a statement under the name “National Officers.”

The purpoted statement published by the newspaper stressed that it did not represent a call for rebellion, an attempt to break away from the military institution, or a challenge to the army’s leadership. However, its authors said issuing such a statement had become necessary amid what they described as an escalating campaign aimed not only at preventing the army from fulfilling its duty in confronting Israeli attacks, but also at pushing it to fight Lebanese who resist occupation on Lebanese territory.

Under the title “Honor, Sacrifice, Loyalty,” the draft statement said the officers felt a national and moral duty to express deep concern over policies that could place the army in confrontation with "national forces resisting foreign aggression."

The statement stressed that the national army was established to serve as the country’s shield and defender of its sovereignty, not to become a party to internal conflict among fellow citizens. It added that the army’s doctrine, rooted in law and military tradition, is based on protecting the homeland, defending its people and preserving civil peace and the unity of the state.

It warned that placing the army in confrontation with its own citizens or assigning it the task of pursuing those resisting external aggression would represent a dangerous precedent that could threaten the cohesion of the military institution and the stability of the country.

Such decisions, it said, could weaken the army’s unifying role and expose its internal cohesion to serious risks.

The statement also said that "any decision that places the army in opposition to its people or contradicts its national mission carries the risk of division and weakening," calling for the highest degree of wisdom and responsibility in handling the current sensitive stage.

It concluded by reaffirming that protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial unity remains the highest objective sworn to by the army officers, stressing that preserving the cohesion of the military institution and preventing any path toward internal division is a national responsibility that rests with all authorities.