According to Chouman, there is a growing trend among regional states, as well as some European countries, toward building their own security umbrellas rather than relying entirely on Washington.
This shift is potentially more dangerous to American influence than simply losing a military battle.
A great power begins to decline when its allies start looking for security alternatives outside its umbrella.
As for the Tehran–Washington track, Chouman’s assessment is clear:
There will be no Iranian-American negotiations in the foreseeable future—and perhaps beyond that.
As for Lebanon, the picture is even harsher.
Chouman describes the Lebanese negotiations with the Israeli occupation state as resembling a policy of deliberately insisting on running into a wall.
The reason, according to his assessment, is that the Lebanese negotiating side is betting on Washington to pressure Israel.
But the reality, he argues, points in exactly the opposite direction:
American pressure is being directed at Lebanon.
The clearest indication is that Washington is not pressuring Netanyahu to define the pilot zones, while it is pressuring the Lebanese side to tighten what it calls “sovereign measures.”
And here is the question that cannot be ignored:
If Washington is a mediator, why does the pressure appear to be directed more heavily at the Lebanese side than at the side occupying Lebanese territory?
Perhaps because this is no longer simply a negotiation over field arrangements.
The real battle is over what Lebanon will look like after the war—and who will impose the terms when the settlement is written.
More dangerously, Lebanon may find itself facing an agreement it is expected to honor while the Israeli side retains its occupation and freedom of maneuver, with international pressure becoming a tool for reshaping Lebanon’s internal political and security landscape.