There's been a lot of nonsense passing as truth in post-blast Lebanon reporting. Most centers around alarmism about Hezbollah's nefarious influence, the West's "opportunity" to destroy it, and the supposed struggle with Russia, China, and Iran for paternalist-preeminence in a country that isn't ours (or theirs) to preside over in the first place. Consider some embarrassing examples:

Forbes, August 19:
Headline: "Presence Of Hezbollah In Lebanon Renders National Unity Government Ineffective, Hinders IMF Aid."
Highlights: "'France fails to understand the extent of the stranglehold on power held by Hezbollah,' [Carlos Abadi, Managing Director at financial advisory firm DecisionBoundaries] said;" and "How Lebanon's creditors fare will not just depend on the continued influence of Hezbollah in blocking the necessary IMF reforms relating to customs…"
National Review (authored by an editorial intern and student in data science and economics at Harvard), 22 August:
Headline: "Now Is the Time to Force Hezbollah out of Lebanon."
Highlights: "Without a lasting, consistent effort from the U.S. or some kind of global coalition and a blessing from all the Lebanese – including the Shiites – Hezbollah could stick around for quite some time;" and "the US seemingly has a window to encourage a free and democratic Lebanon while taking a critical step in the maximum-pressure strategy against Iran."