569
Lebanon is a country whose domestic politics—more than in many other states in the region—have consistently been shaped by developments in the international arena. From the nineteenth century through the early twentieth, Lebanon was under Ottoman rule and later French mandate. In the post–World War II era, it became the target of repeated interventions by Israel, Syria, and the United States—interventions that have persistently undermined Lebanon’s stability as a sovereign state.
This international dimension is the key to understanding Lebanon’s current condition. To grasp the depth of the crisis, one must examine Lebanon’s history from its earliest years under Ottoman authority to the present day, tracing how global shifts and international conflicts have continually reshaped the country’s internal dynamics.
The role of Western powers in destabilizing Lebanon has followed a clear historical trajectory:
1. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of Lebanon under French mandate (1918–1943) resulted in the formation of a state riddled with deep internal divisions, one that was dependent from its inception on external balances of power.
2. The post-independence period and the Cold War erasaw intense competition for influence in Lebanon. In 1958, Washington deployed military forces under the pretext of preserving stability—an intervention that in practice deepened political polarization.
3. The Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990) was prolonged and complicated by foreign interference. Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982—carried out by a close U.S. ally—severely exacerbated Lebanon’s instability.
4. The post-war reconstruction periodwitnessed Lebanon’s financial institutions being reshaped under Western neoliberal policies, leading to mounting debt and long-term economic fragility.
5. The 2020 Beirut port explosion marked another turning point. While Western countries—led by the United States—appeared to step in to assist Lebanon, political pressure aimed at engineering the Lebanese government once again generated serious challenges.
Taken together, Western powers bear a significant share of responsibility for Lebanon’s fragile and crisis-prone structures. Many of the country’s current problems stem from its entrenched sectarian and tribal framework—one that France, the United States, and to some extent Britain played a decisive role in shaping.
Since independence, Lebanon has never fully evolved into a stable state. Rarely have foreign interventions genuinely aimed at strengthening democracy or state capacity. More often, these interventions have served external interests, while Lebanese leaders have exploited international rivalries to reinforce their own political positions.
What Lebanon faces today is the direct and unavoidable outcome of a persistent social vacuum. A country composed of eighteen distinct Christian and Muslim communities—rooted in ethnic, linguistic, tribal, and geographic differences—has continuously experienced instability and violence as an integral part of its political life.
The absence of a social foundation capable of sustaining political cohesion has meant that, since Lebanon’s formation after World War I, the core issue of identity has remained unresolved. The most prominent challenge Lebanon faces is the lack of a shared national identity. Instead, the country is defined by a mosaic of competing identities—ethnic, tribal, religious, and racial in nature.
To this day, Lebanon has failed to reach consensus on the question of identity. The absence of identity cohesion perpetuates deep and wide fault lines, making both society and its leaders highly receptive to the influence—and intrusion—of external actors.
Due to these structural characteristics, Lebanon has become—more than almost any other country in West Asia—a uniquely fertile ground for foreign and transnational intervention in its internal affairs.
Given the strategic sensitivities of the region, particularly the U.S. relationship with Israel and Lebanon’s proximity to the occupied territories, Washington has often delegated the task of safeguarding Western interests and aligned groups to France, while at times assuming this role directly. This means the United States employs all available levers of power—directly and indirectly—to ensure that pro-Western forces maintain a dominant and influential position within Lebanon.
Recent reports have highlighted efforts to repair relations between the Lebanese Armed Forces and the United States. For the first time, the Lebanese Army Commander, General Rudolf Haykal, organized a tour for foreign ambassadors and military attachés in southern Lebanon to demonstrate the “clearing of Hezbollah positions.” The stated objective was to secure additional support at an upcoming Paris meeting involving representatives from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and France. It has been reported that General Haykal and U.S. officials are expected to assess Lebanon’s situation during this meeting.
Considering that the United States holds the most extensive interests in West Asia, its intervention in Lebanon is viewed in Washington as both logical and necessary. As long as domestic actors fail to establish value-based cohesion and revive a shared national identity capable of transcending primordial loyalties, space will remain open for transnational actors to exert influence. Given that U.S. interests in Lebanon surpass those of other regional players, it is evident that Washington will continue to mobilize its regional and European allies to advance its objectives.
Accordingly, due to Lebanon’s fragile and highly permeable structure, the country is likely to remain trapped in a cycle of negative foreign intervention—unless a clear and collective Lebanese vision emerges to bring this cycle to an end.
Hakimeh Zaeim Bashi
Comment
Post a comment for this article