Lebanon must focus on achievable goals

Looking for avenues for optimism in the regional miasma, one wonders whether Lebanon might offer up some hope. This is a country and a people who have undergone such suffering thanks to the Syrian war and consequent refugee crisis, the economic collapse and the Beirut port explosion, as well as Israel’s 2024 war on the country. The Lebanese could do with a decent break.

So, why the hint of optimism? For various reasons, there may soon be a pivotal moment where a hitherto weak and fragile state can assert its sovereign control and decouple itself from the aggressive ambitions of external powers, not least Israel and Iran.

Firstly, in President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who have been at the helm for about a year, Lebanon has a ruling duo with widespread local, regional and international credibility. This may not last, so the two need backing not just economically but politically.

To profit from this narrow window, major international actors must pressure Israel to honor its ceasefire obligations

Chris Doyle

Secondly, in the quest to assert the role of the state, nonstate actors have to cede ground and respect this. The weakness of Hezbollah presents just such an opportunity. The loss of its charismatic long-term leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and many of his lieutenants has damaged its standing. Its military capabilities have been clearly degraded in the war with Israel and it has lost a patron in the Assad regime. Hezbollah can no longer deter Israel. In fact, Hezbollah has become a magnet for Israeli attacks.

Thirdly, Iran is no longer the power it was owing to the US sanctions regime and the June war of last year. It cannot offer its allies, including Hezbollah, the weapons, training and finance that it once could. Iran still retains arguably even greater influence over the Lebanese Shiite group, but it has greater things to worry about on the home front.

Yet, to build on this, local and external actors must contribute.

The Israeli leadership, like it does with Gaza, has difficulty in understanding what a ceasefire entails. According to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, Israel has violated the November 2024 ceasefire more than 10,000 times and has frequently targeted the UN agency itself. These violations have been escalating in the last few months, leading some to wonder if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans another massive hit on Lebanon in an Israeli election year.

What will encourage the Israeli PM is the minimal pushback these violations receive from international actors. The US did make some moves along this path, but not with the full weight that this Trump administration can bring to bear.

Normalization should not be rushed. The Lebanese public is not yet ready for this, not least because of anger over Gaza

Chris Doyle

Far from calling out the attacks on UNIFIL, the UN Security Council has stipulated that its mandate will expire at the end of 2026, largely at the US’ insistence. This is foolhardy. When one considers the history of this border and the wars and clashes that have transpired in this small area, the need for a multinational presence is crystal clear.

To profit from this narrow window, major international actors must pressure Israel to honor its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, including UNSC Resolution 1701. This means a full withdrawal from the five hilltops in South Lebanon that Israel is occupying. This should be carried out immediately but, if not, there should be a proper timetable for withdrawal as a bare minimum.

The US has led the charge to bring about the disarming of Hezbollah. This makes sense. The Lebanese state must have a monopoly over the use of force. For too long, Hezbollah has undermined that.

But the Lebanese government is on the horns of a dilemma. It is one thing to clear weapons from south of the Litani River but quite another to disarm Hezbollah in its entirety without a political agreement. All parties should be wary of getting the Lebanese army into a military confrontation with Hezbollah, as it is unlikely to be able to win. It is crucial that the army has the credibility of a national institution that protects all communities.

There has to be some form of political offer to Hezbollah as to how its fighters might get incorporated into the country’s armed forces. Shiite communities will want reassurance that they will not lose out politically and economically.

The Israeli government and the US are pressing Lebanon to agree to normalization. Israeli figures tried to push for interministerial meetings and not the ceasefire mechanism as a means to get closer to full ties. The US has even had to calm fears by confirming that this mechanism will still be meeting.

Normalization should not be rushed. Lebanon is a front-line state, invaded multiple times by Israel and its territory occupied for protracted periods of time. The Lebanese public is not yet ready for this, not least because of anger over Gaza. This is something that is not, at this stage, realistic for the Aoun-Salam government. Its position is that the parties should implement the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, meaning normalization would be contingent on the end of the occupation of Palestine.

But a security agreement with Israel might be feasible. Finalizing the border should also be possible. It is better to focus on what is achievable rather than engage in fantasies.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech