The journey of American diplomacy in the Middle East often feels quite modest. Whenever I hear optimistic officials discuss the challenges of navigating the “new Middle East,” it consistently signals the need to revisit evacuation plans and duck for cover in the embassy bunker.
If the conversation turns to peace in Lebanon, well, that’s usually a cue to add an IQ test to the evacuation preparations for those who seem disconnected from reality. The history between America and Lebanon is filled with lofty expectations that frequently lead to disillusionment, and it hasn’t been without significant casualties along the way.
This time, however, there might be a silver lining.
During my recent two-week visit to Beirut and Jerusalem, just before the onset of the Israeli-Iranian “12 Days War,” I sensed something different. It felt like there was a genuine opportunity for peace—more than just a temporary truce, but a potential for a lasting agreement between Israel and Lebanon.
Some on both sides might call me hopeful, maybe even naive. But honestly, no one has presented a solid argument for why it couldn’t happen. An old saying in Lebanon echoes this sentiment: “Lebanon is not the first Arab state to reconcile with Israel, and it certainly won’t be the last.” It once sounded like a punchline, especially with Syrian and Iranian influences dominating Lebanon’s decisions since the 1980s until recently.
Under the influence of the Iranian clergy and the Assad family, which also used Lebanese proxies like Hezbollah, life-and-death decisions regarding war and peace were made for the Lebanese populace. They would provoke conflicts in Southern Lebanon while keeping themselves shielded from the fallout. Following the Israeli Defense Forces’ withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah intensified military operations to serve those foreign agendas, placing the weight of conflict squarely on the shoulders of the Lebanese people.
Both Israel and the U.S. have shifted that dynamic. Hezbollah’s military capabilities have diminished; the Assad family now leans on Moscow rather than Damascus, and Iran finds itself in a survival struggle, unable to safeguard its airspace let alone assert its influence. This reshapes the landscape, offering a unique diplomatic chance for Lebanon and Israel to consider peace. Timing is essential in diplomacy, and this moment appears ripe for engagement. Lebanon seems less under the thumb of external powers and is increasingly swayed by American influence.
Of course, transitioning to peace is a major leap for those who have endured decades of violence. Yet, the reality isn’t as complex as some might perceive. There’s no real dispute over territory; Israel desires security, not land. Post-withdrawal, Hezbollah has exaggerated colonial-era borders while maintaining its excuse of “resistance against occupation.”
The core issue? Security. The successful implementation of the recent ceasefire could offer some solutions, but executing it politically might prove challenging. The ceasefire agreement calls for Hezbollah’s complete disarmament, with a focus on the area between Israel’s border and the Ritani River. For six months now, the Lebanese army has been equipped and trained by American partners to prepare for this shift—but they’ve made little progress in tackling Hezbollah’s positions.
If Lebanese officials can’t uphold the ceasefire and disarm Hezbollah, the Israeli Defense Forces might take action themselves, all in the name of state authority. The resultant humiliation for Lebanese leaders would be tragic if they fail to grasp the chance to reclaim full sovereignty over their nation.
Yet, Lebanon’s political landscape is fraught with challenges. Even with the potential absence of Iranian influence, worries about igniting sectarian tensions can paralyze decisionmaking. Many Lebanese Shiites, who have long enjoyed the protection of Hezbollah, fear repercussions from Israelis and the unease of coexisting with other Lebanese communities.
For peace to truly mean something—beyond merely ending hostilities—the context is crucial. The Lebanese I spoke with can envision a future with Israel that goes beyond merely returning to the 1949 armistice, but that armistice never genuinely resolved issues. It likely contributed to wars in Lebanon and breaches of sovereignty by Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, or Iranians.
Some are wary of normalizing relations in the style of the UAE. However, how a peace agreement takes shape can be devised by the involved parties and doesn’t need to mirror the Abraham Accords. A solid peace agreement must convince the people in South Lebanon that their future lies in capable hands—those of military leaders who support peace treaties akin to those between Israel and Egypt or Jordan. This is arguably the only viable route to stabilize South Lebanon and rejuvenate one of the region’s most war-torn countries, all while creating enough trust and security to encourage investment and tourism again amid a pressing financial crisis.
Now is the time for well-planned, sustained American diplomacy. It’s not just about enforcing a ceasefire; it’s about pushing for authentic peace and solidifying the realignment of regional power that has emerged following recent events with Iran. U.S. diplomacy can help tackle local issues that Iran has exploited, particularly among the Lebanese populace. However, this window of opportunity won’t stay open forever.
