Illustration- The Lebanese people are tired of fighting the wars of others. Their future belongs to one state, one army, and one sovereign Lebanon
History has already shown that neither Syria nor Israel can impose a lasting solution on Lebanon. Only a sovereign Lebanese state can do that.
BY: THE EDITORIAL BOARD, OPINION
“I am disappointed with Israel; they cannot do anything without demolishing buildings in Lebanon. I am getting close to handing the Hezbollah file over to Syria and empowering Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa.”
That reported remark by President Donald Trump may have been intended as a warning to Israel, but for many Lebanese it sounded like something far more troubling: the suggestion that Syria should once again play a role in determining Lebanon’s future.
For Lebanon, that is not a solution. It is a reminder of a painful chapter that the country spent decades trying to close.
Syria occupied Lebanon from 1976 until 2005. During those nearly three decades, Damascus exercised enormous influence over Lebanon’s political, military, and security affairs. That era ended only after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and the mass demonstrations of the Cedar Revolution, which forced Syrian troops to withdraw under intense international pressure.
Lebanese citizens who lived through that period have not forgotten it. The last thing Lebanon needs today is the return of Syrian influence under a different name.
There is another irony that should not be overlooked. Syria was also the country that allowed Hezbollah to retain its weapons after the end of Lebanon’s 1975–1990 civil war while most other militias were disarmed. Damascus viewed Hezbollah as a strategic asset and a means of preserving its influence in Lebanon. Suggesting that Syria should now be entrusted with solving the Hezbollah problem ignores this important historical reality.
There is also the question of Syria’s current leadership. President Ahmed al-Sharaa may be seeking international legitimacy and improved relations with the West, but his past associations continue to raise concerns among many Lebanese and others throughout the region. His government’s relationship with Syria’s minorities remains controversial, and the backgrounds of many members of Syria’s security forces continue to fuel skepticism about the direction of the new Syrian state.
More importantly, however, this debate is not really about Syria’s current leadership. It is about Lebanon’s sovereignty.
For the first time in decades, Lebanon has a president and a prime minister who genuinely believe in rebuilding the Lebanese state, restoring its institutions, strengthening the economy, and reclaiming the country’s full sovereignty. Lebanon is also engaged in negotiations aimed at resolving outstanding issues with Israel and creating the conditions for lasting stability along its southern border.
Those efforts deserve international support, not outside interference.
There is also an important historical lesson that Washington should remember. In 1982, the United States became deeply involved in Lebanon’s affairs following Israel’s invasion. What began as an effort to stabilize the situation eventually drew the United States directly into the conflict. The deployment of the Multinational Force, the collapse of the May 17 Agreement, and the devastating attacks on U.S. forces demonstrated how difficult it is for outside powers to impose political solutions on Lebanon. Israel’s attempt to force a peace treaty on Lebanon failed, and Lebanon paid a heavy price for becoming an arena for regional and international rivalries.
More than four decades later, the lesson remains the same. Neither Syria nor Israel nor any outside power can build a stable Lebanon on Lebanon’s behalf. Lasting stability cannot be imposed from outside. It must be built by the Lebanese state and accepted by the Lebanese people themselves.
If Hezbollah’s military role is to be addressed, it should be addressed by the Lebanese state, supported by the international community and a strengthened Lebanese Armed Forces—not by handing responsibility to a neighboring country with a long history of involvement in Lebanese affairs.
Mr. Trump, with U.S. support, Lebanon is pursuing its own path toward sovereignty, security, and peace through the negotiations currently underway in Washington. You can help that process succeed by pressing Israel to end its war with Hezbollah, fully implement the ceasefire agreement, and withdraw its forces to the Blue Line.
Lebanon wants good relations with all its neighbors, including Syria. But good relations are not the same as political tutelage. Its future must be decided only in Beirut—not Damascus.
