We heard "the grown-ups are back in charge" when Joe Biden arrived at the White House in
January 2021. Three and a half years later, the words continue to ring hollow.

The latest example of the administration's malfeasance can be witnessed in Lebanon. The Biden administration's attempt to prevent an escalation of hostilities between the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel has led it to engage in problematic diplomacy.

Biden's envoy, Amos Hochstein, repeatedly interacts — most recently on June 18 — with Lebanon's Nabih Berri, a prominent Lebanese politician and speaker of the Lebanese Parliament.

The problem with interacting with Berri is that he is more than just a politician and government official. He is the leader of a political party, Harakat Amal, that also operates a militia. Berri's militia is currently assisting Hezbollah against Israel, a U.S. ally, in a conflict initiated by Hezbollah.

The public engagement with Berri challenges U.S. diplomatic standards, policies, and leadership. It is an affront to much of what the Biden administration claims to stand for and has sought to do in the past three and half years: invest in institutions, debilitate terrorist organizations, and uphold a "rules-based" order. The diplomatic behavior demonstrates sloppiness, if not recklessness.

On Oct. 8, Hezbollah initiated an almost daily barrage of attacks on Israel. The Lebanese
militia claims the unprovoked attacks of the past eight months are an act of solidarity with Hamas and the people of Gaza. Hezbollah refuses to cease its attacks until Israel ends its operations in Gaza that began after Hamas massacred about 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7.

Hezbollah's unilateral action on Oct. 8 and subsequent attacks demonstrate a disregard for
the Lebanese state and an indifference to the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah never consulted with the Lebanese government prior to its attack. The Lebanese government has not officially condoned the militia's aggression against Israel, and Lebanon has no military pact with the Palestinians, let alone Hamas.

The participation of Berri's Harakat Amal in subsequent operations against Israel upholds the disregard and indifference. Like Hezbollah, it has no qualms about defying the Lebanese state and people. In fact, its participation is celebrated at the funerals of militia members killed by Israel where Berri's image adorns posters and the party's flags.

The administration's continued interaction with Nabih Berri corrupts two key U.S. policies in
Lebanon:

1. U.S. investment in the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
2. The weakening and marginalization of Hezbollah.

It also encourages the furtherance of disordering international behavior.

Since 2006, the U.S. government has invested billions of American tax dollars in the LAF. The Biden administration took an extraordinary measure in its 2023 investment by rerouting millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to pay the salaries of members in the LAF.

The administration argues that the continued support of the LAF is a U.S. national security interest because the LAF is the last credible national institution and symbol of national unity and acts as a counterweight to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

How does the United States expect its decadeslong investment in the LAF to be realized when it willingly interacts with a figure who openly undermines that institution? Is the United States serious about its support of the LAF and countering Hezbollah?

Hochstein's public engagement strengthens a militia and its leader — Berri — at the cost of the LAF.

The Biden administration reinforces corrosive behavior that has been endemic to Lebanon's
history: Lebanese parties acting independently of the state. By conferring with him, Berri is
rewarded by the United States despite his party's illicit behavior.

The administration makes a militia leader a partner to a state settlement. What incentive do Berri and other Lebanese actors have to abandon similar behavior in the future?

Interacting with Berri also undermines U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Since designating
Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997, the United States has invested
considerable time and resources to delegitimize, marginalize, and weaken the organization.

Since it was a designated FTO, the U.S. government enacted financial policies and international resolutions seeking the militia's demise. The United States refuses to interact with Hezbollah ministers in Lebanese governments. Recently, Congress passed measures that have led to the sanctioning of Lebanese allies or partners financially cooperating with the terrorist organization.

Considering the measures taken by every U.S. administration against Hezbollah since 1997, it is baffling that Biden allows Hochstein to continue to engage Berri. The leader of a militia that is actively cooperating with Hezbollah in aggression against a U.S. ally is tolerated while others are punished and sanctioned for financial assistance? It displays a double standard.

The Biden administration's diplomatic malfeasance in Lebanon reverberates internationally. It tarnishes Biden's credibility as a leader of the supposed "rules-based" order. The administration's engagement with Berri is not conducive to any order; it is complicit in perpetuating state failure.

One does not legitimize actors who operate outside the confines of the state and cooperate with internationally recognized terrorist organizations. The administration's actions project
inconsistencies and question U.S. sincerity to the order it claims to celebrate and defend.

For an administration that was proclaimed as a return to principled and constructive statecraft, its recent diplomatic endeavors in Lebanon demonstrate otherwise. Engaging the leader of a political party whose militia is actively cooperating with a U.S.-designated FTO against a U.S. ally is imprudent and harmful. It undermines U.S. interests, policies,
and leadership.

President Biden's envoy, Amos Hochstein, needs to limit his interactions to the
Lebanese prime minister and foreign minister so the United States is not guilty of perpetuating disqualifying diplomatic behavior.

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA's Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.