They say Lebanon is a failed state — but Iraq just proved that’s a lie. Same resistance, same logic, but only one faces US coercion. Why? Right, so apparently linking disarmament to foreign withdrawal is a mark of statehood in Iraq but a mark of failure in Lebanon. Same sentence, different accent, opposite outcome. Baghdad tells Washington the militias will stand down when the Americans finally pack up and go, and it’s called sovereignty. Beirut says Hezbollah will disarm when Israel stops crossing its border and breaching a ceasefire it has abused for almost a year now and it’s called collapse. Tom Barrack calls that proof that Lebanon is “a failed state.” Well he should know — Washington’s been rehearsing that diagnosis for years in Israel’s interests – how else do you turn a blind eye to thousands upon thousands of ceasefire breaches and still blame the victim of them? When a country stops being useful, the US stops calling it sovereign. “Failed State” in this playbook doesn’t mean collapse, it means disobedience. Iraq still fits inside the the banner of usefulness because it has oil and strategic importance; Lebanon doesn’t. It has Hezbollah and is therefore a threat to Israel in their book, even as Israel once again launches strikes across the south of their country. That’s the real divide. But the hypocrisy of Trump’s pro Israel goons isn’t going to go ignored.