July 04, 2025
Introduction
This weekend’s news from Lebanon provides a brief glimpse touching on many aspects of its history and society. It is a story of regional and global conflict, societal division, and oil profiteering. It is a story of a nation given the choice of either centralizing its own authority or being torn to pieces.
The US Ambassador to Turkey and special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack issued a 5-page paper recently proposing that Lebanon’s government disarm Hezbollah and all other unauthorized militias, commit to economic reforms, and resolve border disputes with Syria and Israel by November or at least the end of the year. The proposal gives Lebanon three months to achieve results, threatening that no partner nation will give financial assistance to Lebanon if it fails.(1)
Barrack’s proposal seems to have a larger underlying motive, in that it threatens the Lebanese state with becoming obsolete. With the rise of Syria to prominence in the western world, it is a wonder whether there will be a nation called Lebanon by the new year.(2)
A Global and Regional Conflict
Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire various powers have manipulated and exerted control on Middle Eastern nations in a quest for controlling the flow of oil there. Tribes and other groups have been turned against each other to weaken tribal systems, and central governments have been backed so long as they sign deals for developing oil infrastructure that benefit western nations. War clearly does not benefit the majority of people but has instead deprived whole populations of liberty and justice for the sake of profit and control by a select few.(3)
General Wesley Clark, in 2003, admitted the US in 2001 drew up plans to attack seven countries in five years. The plan was to “attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”(4) Speaking to Democracy Now Clark elaborated saying “the truth about the middle east is, had there been no oil there it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa…There is no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement.”(5) These revelations provide insight into recent developments in Lebanon and Syria, and suggest a foreshadowing of the outcomes being pushed for in those countries.
Decades of conflict in Syria has resulted in yet another regime change operation coming to fruition, with Al Assad fleeing to Russia and yesterday’s terrorists becoming today’s government. As a result, the US recently withdrew the Caesar Act Sanctions against Syria, opening a path for economic development in Syria by partner nations.(6) A deal to end war between Syria and Israel, bringing Syria back into the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, could involve recognizing Syrian ownership of parts of Lebanon including Tripoli, the Bekaa Valley, and Shebaa Farms.(7) Such a deal appears hinged on what the central government in Lebanon does next.
Barrack’s goal appears to be for Syria and Lebanon to join the Abraham Accord with Israel.(8) A Saudi Envoy met in Lebanon Saturday and voiced his wish for Lebanon to accept elements of Barrack’s proposal.(9) Israel meanwhile is continuing to squeeze Lebanon militarily, by occupying several locations in Lebanon and continuing to attack with impunity despite having agreed to a ceasefire months ago.(10)
Sectarian Division
The history of sectarian division in Lebanon is extensive, but follows a clear pattern since Lebanon’s creation by the French in 1920 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Presidents have been Maronite Catholics, appointed Prime Ministers have been Sunni Muslim, and Speakers of Parliament have been Shiite Muslims. Since its creation by France Maronite Catholics have sought to create a “”national homeland” of their own, while Muslims there have seen the Christian aspirations as “treason and subversion.”(11) Up until recently the power of the Lebanese state over various groups led by a religious class has been fledgling, but that is apparently changing.(12)
The current President is Joseph Aoun, a Cambridge-educated ex Army General. His book on artificial intelligence explains how a change in higher education can bring about the fourth industrial revolution.(13) He led a military government from 1988 to 1989 when he engaged in a war of liberation against the Syrian-led government in west Beirut which was backed by the US.(14) His loss cemented Syrian domination for the next 15 years and ended the civil war, resulting in Aoun fleeing to France to live in exile with the help of french intelligence agents.(15) After the removal of Syrian troops under the Doha Agreement in 2005, Aoun returned to Lebanon and was elected to the National Assembly. He signed an agreement with Hezbollah in 2006 called the Mar Mikhael Agreement, which let Hezbollah share power in government.(16) Today, the agreement is described having “nothing left.”(17)
A shift in relations between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has occurred recently, with the visit of Lebanon’s Grand Mufti Derian in Damascus where he met with Syrian President al Sharaa. Derian spoke of a moderate Shia stance for both Sharia and civil law. Derian awarded al Sharaa a medal in recognition of his Arab nationalism and service to Syria.(18) Al Sharaa reportedly spoke with the British Foreign Secretary beforehand and discussed Syria annexing parts of Tripoli in exchange for positions in Syria occupied by Israel.(19)
Another major sectarian division in Lebanon is between dominant Shia militias, the Amal Movement started in 1974 and Hezbollah started in 1982. Since 1980 the Amal Movement has been led by Nabih Berri, who has also been the Speaker of Parliament since 1992. In general both groups have claimed aspirations to defend the Lebanese people, but Amal became accused of being a bridge between America and Israel, while Hezbollah became backed by Syria’s Assad-led government.(20) Hezbollah has been the stronger of the two groups militarily, but in recent years Amal has won more seats in parliament than Hezbollah, indicating a shift in the balance of power. So the recent news about Berri’s statement regarding the Barrack Proposal is very telling. “Speaker Nabih Berri for his part told Hezbollah that if it did not respond, Lebanese leaders, including him, would answer the U.S. without Hezbollah’s input on the matter.”(21)
The Centralization of Power
By the end of this year the remaining power of Hezbollah may be totally defeated. Recently, “Aoun, Berri and PM Nawaf Salam ‘agree[d] that the era of arms outside the state is over.’”(22) This statement conveys the intent of the central government in Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah as well as other armed factions. Lebanese Prime Minister Salam has said “the state’s monopoly on weapons is a “necessity” for Lebanese sovereignty, before being a foreign demand.”(23) Salam’s statement appears to be rhetoric aimed at quelling ideas that the Lebanese government is merely a puppet of foreign powers. This is a contentious moment for the elites in Lebanon, as they obviously have been made aware that their hold on the reins of power could be cut short if they don’t cement their rule over Lebanese society. In effect it appears they would be working to achieve the 100-year goal of creating a national homeland for the Maronite people.
Oil Profiteering
Besides the cultural and military dimensions to the conflict in Lebanon there are economic ones as well. Israel wants to gain more access to oil off the coast of Lebanon officially, along a border that has not been officially demarcated. Barrack’s proposal includes “a final phase involving land border demarcation and completion of the maritime border” with Israel.(24) Europe wants to enjoy oil from Kirkuk, Iraq, which can be transported through Syria to a refinery along the Lebanese coast, and Israel could benefit from that arrangement as well if such a pipeline branched over to Haifa. “With the United States moving to lift Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, [the Lebanese] now have a viable path to import oil, gas, and energy resources through Syrian territory.“(25) With new shifts in power in Lebanon and Syria, what rich investor will donate to the development of an upgraded refinery in Tripoli, and what company will control the pipeline through Syria? It seems logical to presume one of those party to the 1928 Red Line Agreement, like BP, would so generously lead such an investment, but that is yet to be seen.
Conclusion
The world now awaits the official response to Barrack’s proposal from Aoun’s government in Lebanon. What will the future bring for the Lebanese people? Will Israel obtain new lands? Will toppling governments and annexing territory of a sovereign nation become normalized or selectively ignored? Whatever may happen, I for one doubt the suffering of the common people of Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria will be given a just rest. Rather, I predict the project to exploit the region for western goals will come to fruition, finally.
Joshua Ray Jongema 