By Ya Libnan Editorial Board
Massad Boulos, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s Senior Adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs, has been making waves in Lebanon, leaving many puzzled by his seemingly contradictory positions. While some of his statements have been a pleasant surprise for those opposed to Hezbollah’s influence, others have raised suspicions, leaving Lebanese citizens wondering: will the real Massad Boulos stand up and clarify his intentions?
A Surprising Appointment with Mixed Messages
Boulos, a Lebanese-born billionaire businessman and father-in-law to Trump’s daughter Tiffany, was described by Trump as “an accomplished lawyer and a highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive international experience.” Trump further lauded him as “a dealmaker and an unwavering supporter of peace in the Middle East.” However, Boulos’s past affiliations with Hezbollah-aligned figures, such as Suleiman Franjieh and Michel Aoun, cast a shadow over his current stance.
In particular, his role as Aoun’s representative in Nigeria and his historical support for Aoun’s alliance with Hezbollah create a backdrop of skepticism. This history makes his recent comments on disarming militias in Lebanon both surprising and confusing.
Challenging Hezbollah’s Arms
In a recent interview with Le Point, Boulos addressed the Lebanese-Israeli ceasefire agreement and offered a bold interpretation. He stated that the agreement encompasses the disarmament of all militias across Lebanon—not just south of the Litani River—and cited the importance of implementing U.N. Resolutions 1559 and 1701. These resolutions explicitly call for the disarmament of all militias, including Hezbollah, and for the Lebanese government to assert full control over the country’s territory.
Boulos’s remarks were striking for their directness:
- He emphasized that only official Lebanese institutions, such as the Lebanese Army and municipal police, should possess weapons.
- He asserted that the Lebanese Army is solely responsible for disarming militias and controlling weapons smuggling through the Syrian border, Beirut airport, and the capital’s port, areas long dominated by Hezbollah.
This position was music to the ears of many Lebanese citizens, who have long called for Hezbollah to surrender its arms and allow the state to reclaim its sovereignty. Yet, Boulos tempered expectations by admitting that such a process would take months, if not longer, leaving some wondering about the feasibility of his proposals.
Presidential Election: A Source of Confusion
Boulos’s stance on Lebanon’s protracted presidential crisis has added to the mixed signals. Lebanon has been without a president for over two years, leaving the country politically paralyzed. Many Lebanese hoped that with Trump’s election, international pressure would mount to resolve the crisis. However, Boulos urged patience, advising against rushing to elect a president without offering a clear explanation for this delay.
This ambiguity is particularly troubling given his close ties to Suleiman Franjieh, Hezbollah’s preferred presidential candidate. Critics fear that Boulos’s hesitation may align with Hezbollah’s strategy to prolong the stalemate until it secures a president favorable to its interests.
The Lebanese Demand Clarity
Boulos’s comments have left the Lebanese divided. On one hand, his call for the disarmament of militias and the empowerment of the Lebanese Army resonates with those who yearn for a sovereign and independent Lebanon. On the other hand, his vague stance on the presidential crisis and his historical connections to Hezbollah-aligned figures fuel skepticism about his true motives.
If Massad Boulos seeks to be a credible advocate for Lebanon’s sovereignty, he must address these contradictions. Why does he believe Lebanon should wait to elect a president after two years of political paralysis? Can he reconcile his past affiliations with his current rhetoric on disarming Hezbollah? The Lebanese are watching closely, and they need answers.
For now, the question remains: will Massad Boulos rise to the occasion and become a true champion for Lebanese sovereignty, or will he remain a figure of mixed signals? Only time will tell.