Lebanon could emerge among the biggest losers from the political shift in Washington following the latest U.S. elections, as growing opposition to the war with Iran raises the prospect of reduced American involvement without guaranteeing greater pressure on Israel or support for Lebanese sovereignty, U.S. diplomatic and political sources told Nidaa Al-Watan.

An American source said Lebanon could be among the countries most affected by the change in Washington while benefiting the least from it. Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, alongside mounting Republican criticism of the war with Iran and the U.S. relationship with Israel, could push Washington to seek an exit from the broader conflict without addressing the factors that leave Lebanon exposed to Israeli military operations and regional power struggles.

A U.S. diplomat described this as the bleakest scenario for Beirut, warning that Lebanon could once again be pushed down Washington’s list of priorities as American pressure on Israel focuses on Gaza and the West Bank.

The diplomat criticized what he described as Lebanon’s repeated failure to seize opportunities and its tendency to waste time the country cannot afford to lose.

American sources expect the White House and Congress to seek ways to contain the costs of the confrontation with Iran. But the Lebanese issue, they said, is likely to remain focused on managing tensions rather than reaching a lasting settlement.

Washington could pressure Israel to change its policies in Gaza and the West Bank or seek to prevent another confrontation with Iran, one source said, but he did not expect comparable pressure on the Lebanese front.

A former U.S. official told Nidaa Al-Watan that Lebanon should prepare to be sidelined after missing opportunities to encourage a more favorable American policy toward Beirut.

Opposition to the war, he said, does not automatically translate into a commitment to protect Lebanon. Similarly, declining confidence in Israel does not necessarily mean that military cooperation with it will weaken.

The official said the central problem was that the war had become an electoral liability in the United States, while Lebanon’s suffering had not gained comparable influence over American policymaking.

He argued that Beirut needed to move beyond condemning Israeli military operations and translate its commitments into practical arrangements that could secure Israeli withdrawals, clear security guarantees and support for Lebanese institutions.

Otherwise, if Washington concentrates primarily on reducing the immediate costs of its involvement, Lebanon could be left facing a conflict that receives less attention in American political debate but remains just as dangerous on the ground.

A former U.S. diplomat said Hezbollah’s influence had declined as a result of recent conflicts but stressed that Iran’s relationships with its allies would limit the prospects for a regional agreement capable of automatically resolving Lebanon’s situation.

Lebanon could therefore remain caught between Israel’s security demands, Hezbollah’s calculations and the priorities of a Lebanese government unable to impose a settlement on its own.

Republican criticism puts U.S.-Israeli ties under pressure

The political reassessment in Washington is also raising questions about the future of U.S. relations with Israel.

A U.S. diplomat said the relationship could undergo “a kind of rapid deterioration,” particularly if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies remain unchanged.

The relationship, however, is not necessarily heading toward a complete break. Military cooperation could continue even as political trust erodes, the diplomat suggested. Arms deals and budget allocations could increasingly become subjects of political scrutiny rather than routine extensions of a longstanding partnership.

The source expects pressure on Israel to grow over its policies in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as settler violence.

Those issues already feature in congressional proposals, including initiatives seeking to impose conditions on arms sales and sanctions related to settlements and actions threatening stability in the West Bank.

Israel’s own political situation has added to the uncertainty. The latest elections produced no clear governing majority for any of the main political blocs, raising the possibility of further political deadlock and potentially early elections.

For Lebanon, the uncertainty is significant because a change in Israel’s prime minister would not necessarily bring a change in the security assumptions underpinning Israeli policy along its northern border.

Lebanon risks being left out of Washington’s priorities

Diplomatic sources said that even as Washington reassesses its regional relationships, its main concerns remain containing the confrontation with Iran and managing Israel’s actions rather than making Lebanon a priority.

The growing American opposition to the war, they warned, does not necessarily mean Washington will commit to Lebanon’s reconstruction, strengthen its institutions or protect it against foreign interference.

Previous developments have also exposed the difficulties of translating agreements into lasting stability. Hezbollah rejected the ceasefire agreement and continued to demand a full Israeli withdrawal. The group also refused to participate in the Washington talks, from which it had been excluded.

These developments illustrate the challenges of implementing agreements when an armed group retains the ability to undermine them, the sources said.

The U.S. elections have raised the domestic political cost of the war, but Lebanon risks remaining on the margins of broader discussions about the Middle East. With international responses potentially slowing and Washington reassessing its policies, the country could face renewed uncertainty while its domestic and regional vulnerabilities deepen.