Alwaght- The humiliating behavior of the US envoy to Lebanon Thomas Barrack at a press conference in Beirut has heavily impacted the country's political and media atmosphere.
Barrack, who appeared before Lebanese journalists on Tuesday, used a disrespectful and insulting tone in response to their questions.
He said: “We are going to impose a different set of rules here. I ask you to be quiet for a moment,” and threatened that “as soon as there is chaos and the behavior becomes animalistic, we will leave here."
This behavior not only angered the journalists present at the meeting, but also quickly found widespread reflection in the Lebanese media and social networks.
This incident can be considered not just a slip of the tongue, but a clear sign of the domineering attitude of American officials towards the Lebanese people and elites; an attitude that is also observed behind closed doors in the form of political pressure and Washington’s dictates to the Lebanese government.
Home Lebanese reactions
The offensive behavior of a US envoy towards Lebanese journalists quickly became a top-trending topic on the nation's social media and a leading story in its news media.
Many print newspapers in Beirut described the incident in their editorials as a "blatant insult to Lebanon's national dignity."
Journalists present at the press conference later issued a joint statement, emphasizing that this conduct was a "direct insult to the journalism profession and freedom of speech."
Social media users also condemned Barrack's behavior using Arabic hashtags reading "Humiliation of Lebanon" and "Dignity of Media."
The incident also drew reactions across the Lebanese political spectrum. Some parliament members affiliated with the March 8 Alliance described the move as "a naked display of Washington's hegemonic policies."
Even a number of figures close to the pro-US March 14 Alliance, under pressure from the public outcry, broke their silence and were compelled to criticize the "disrespect shown to Lebanese journalists." This rare consensus indicates that the issue transcends partisan divides and is instead tied to matters of national dignity and mutual respect.
From a public perspective, the incident was seen as more than just a contentious press conference; it morphed into a symbol of the colonialist attitude foreign powers exhibit toward Lebanon. The incident was bitterly satirized in cafes, universities, and even on entertainment TV shows. The Lebanese people remarked with ironic humor: "If our journalists are humiliated like this, imagine what happens to our politicians behind closed doors!"
True US colors: Washington's plans imposed on Lebanon
Barrack's behavior was not merely a media incident; rather, it symbolizes a broader attitude that the US has pursued in its dealings with Lebanon for years.
Over the past two decades, Washington has consistently sought to use political tools, economic pressure, and even the threat of sanctions to steer the Lebanese government toward positions that are often at odds with the country's national interest and the will of its people.
From the perspective of many Lebanese analysts, Barrack’s condescending treatment of journalists reflects the same paternalistic and hegemonic approach that has characterized US policy on key cases. These include the disarmament of Hezbollah, the regulation of Lebanon's energy sector, and even the management of its ports and airports.
During that press conference, Barrack inadvertently dropped the diplomatic facade and spoke with an overtly commanding tone—a tone that sources say has been repeatedly used behind closed doors in negotiations with Lebanese officials.
This incident underscores a recurring theme: Washington's imposed plans in Lebanon appear designed not around the country's actual needs, but to advance the strategic agendas of Washington and Tel Aviv. This includes pressuring banks to restrict financial flows to Hezbollah and imposing sweeping sanctions on figures close to Hezbollah.
A case in point is the recent move by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's government. Despite massive warnings about the severe implications for Lebanon's internal stability and external security, and amid strong objections from the Shia community and key political factions, the cabinet unilaterally approved Barrack's four-point plan. This plan, which insists on the complete disarmament of Hezbollah by the end of the year, is seen by many as being drafted squarely to align with the demands and interests of the Israeli regime.
Differences of Iran and US approaches in Lebanon
This stands in stark contrast to the approach of Iranian officials in their dealings with Lebanon, who have consistently prioritized respect for the nation's sovereignty and its media and political elites. The recent visit to Beirut by Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, serves as a clear example of this approach.
During press conferences, despite the presence of journalists affiliated with groups opposed to Axis of Resistance, Larijani responded to challenging questions with composure and respect. Even media outlets in Lebanon critical of the Resistance camp acknowledged that he addressed inquiries with equanimity and without the use of insulting language.
This comparison highlights that two powers—one extra-regional and one regional—are operating in Lebanon based on entirely different logics: the US with a language of coercion and diktat, and Iran with a language of respect and engagement. This very difference in approach explains, in part, why a significant segment of Lebanese society trusts cooperation with Iran and supports Hezbollah in opposing projects advanced by Washington and Tel Aviv.
The US, journalists, and a black record
Barrack's behavior in Beirut must be analyzed within the broader context of the Trump administration's overall policy in dealing journalists and the media.
From the outset of his presidency, Trump maintained a highly adversarial relationship with the press, frequently labeling critical journalists as "the enemy of the people."
He repeatedly interacted with American reporters in a derogatory manner during domestic White House press briefings, even going so far as to bar certain major news outlets from attending press conferences and events.
This confrontation was not limited to domestic media. On the international stage, the Trump administration also compiled a black record in its dealings with journalists.
A prominent example was the sanctioning of several UN reporters who had criticized US human rights policies in their reports. The US Treasury Department imposed financial and travel restrictions on these journalists, a move widely condemned by observers as a blatant violation of the principles of the UN Charter.
Furthermore, the Trump administration's silence in the face of the systematic killing of journalists by the Israeli military during Gaza war stands as further evidence of Washington's alignment with campaigns to suppress media freedom.
While international organizations have repeatedly condemned the killing of Palestinian journalists by Israeli forces, the US government has either remained silent or offered implicit defense of Tel Aviv's actions.
In such a context, the American envoy's insults to the Lebanese journalists is not accidental, rather, it is part of bigger puzzle showing yhar in the eyes of Washington the journalists walking against the official American policy deserve humiliation, threat, and even elimination.
Even at a major level,the Barrack's behavior in Beirut should be regarded as part of a bigger model. It is a reflection of the dictating, colonial policy of Washington behind the closed doors that in recent years has pushed to channel Lebanon in line with American interests.
