جمال دملج

Lebanon is entering a decisive test of whether it can exercise sovereignty in practice rather than merely pledge to restore it. British security assistance, including possible participation in an international verification mechanism with Italy, Switzerland and Indonesia, could help secure the eastern border, combat smuggling and support the Lebanese Army’s deployment in the south. Such external involvement would not necessarily diminish sovereignty if it remains a temporary bridge toward national capacity, but it would become problematic if verification and assistance replaced the state. Proposed pilot areas in southern Lebanon may therefore serve as a practical test of the government’s ability to enforce exclusive state control over security and weapons, implement its commitments and build domestic and international confidence.

Lebanon's direct negotiations with Israel, under American sponsorship, are presented as a test of whether the Lebanese state can reclaim exclusive authority over war and peace. The article argues that Hezbollah's independent armed force is increasingly incompatible with a state conducting negotiations through its institutions, but that disarming the group need not mean eliminating its political role. Drawing on Northern Ireland's transition from armed conflict to political participation, it calls for a broader national settlement that gives Hezbollah's constituency a legitimate place in public life while placing all weapons under state control. Continued weapons outside state authority could revive conflict and leave Lebanon vulnerable to external decisions, whereas a full transition to politics could preserve Hezbollah's influence through elections and governance rather than military power.

Lebanon’s ongoing US-sponsored direct negotiations with Israel, following the seventh round in Rome, have created an opportunity for the Lebanese state to reclaim its role as the sole authority responsible for negotiations, security and the use of force. The article argues that diplomatic commitments to a weapons monopoly are insufficient without a gradual, transparent and measurable implementation process. Hezbollah’s continued rejection of this course, along with unverified reports of tunnels extending beyond southern Lebanon, is presented as a direct test of whether the state knows what exists within its territory. Regional shifts involving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran may offer Beirut greater room to act as a state rather than as an arena for outside powers. Any progress on borders, ceasefire arrangements, detainees or monitoring mechanisms will remain fragile unless Lebanon can enforce its authority nationwide and ensure that decisions of war and peace belong exclusively to state institutions.

Lebanon is portrayed as facing a fundamental conflict between the authority of the state and Hezbollah’s allegiance to regional power networks. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are seeking to restore constitutional institutions, reclaim control over political and security decisions, and pursue direct negotiations with Israel under US sponsorship. Hezbollah rejects the negotiations and attacks the government, viewing the transfer of decision-making from the party to state institutions as a threat. The article argues that Lebanon’s repeated wars and periods of foreign tutelage have weakened the state, while economic collapse and destruction have increased public support for restoring a single national authority, army, and decision on war and peace.

A message from Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem is presented as an attempt to reaffirm Tehran’s influence in Lebanon at a time when Lebanese authorities are seeking to restore the state’s control over security, foreign policy, and national decision-making. Since President Jozef Aoun’s election, Lebanon has emphasized the state’s monopoly on arms, strengthened the role of the Lebanese Armed Forces, re-engaged with Arab and international partners, and continued direct negotiations with Israel. The article frames the country’s current trajectory as a contest between state-centered governance and the regional-axis model that ties Lebanon to conflicts beyond its borders, arguing that the central question is whether Lebanon can define its own national priorities.

Lebanon is portrayed as gradually moving from being a arena for regional conflicts to becoming a state whose policies are shaped by constitutional institutions. Since Joseph Aoun’s election as president, official discourse has emphasized restoring the state’s exclusive authority over security and foreign policy, strengthening the army, and reconnecting Lebanon with its Arab and international surroundings. Direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, U.S. support, and European initiatives are presented as signs that international actors increasingly recognize Lebanon’s official institutions as the primary partner. The article cautions that internal divisions and regional complications remain serious obstacles, and argues that lasting success will depend on turning the current opportunity into sustainable policies that rebuild trust and establish the state’s monopoly over sovereign decisions.

Statements by the U.S. and Lebanese presidents during Joseph Aoun’s visit to Washington signaled a shift toward redefining Lebanon’s future political direction. The U.S. tied its support to the Lebanese state’s ability to restore institutional authority, while Aoun publicly framed ending hostility with Israel as Lebanon’s long‑term goal. The article highlights a broader transition from crisis management to envisioning a stable political future led by state institutions rather than regional power dynamics.

Lebanon is undergoing a multi‑layered political, security and diplomatic shift that is restoring state authority after years of weakened institutions and competing power centers. Renewed control over the southern security file, expanded engagement with the United States highlighted by the upcoming presidential visit to Washington, and growing European interest in stabilizing Lebanon reflect an opportunity to reassert national sovereignty. While internal actors remain wary of the new trajectory, international partners increasingly view the Lebanese state as a central actor capable of managing negotiations and security responsibilities. Despite ongoing challenges, the country is experiencing its most significant opening in years to rebuild institutional legitimacy and reclaim its regional and international standing.

Lebanon faces a pivotal moment as its leadership seeks to reassert state authority after decades of fragmented decision-making and competing power centers. President Joseph Aoun emphasizes restoring the state as the sole holder of legitimate force, framing sovereignty as a national, not sectarian, project. The government pursues a middle path combining negotiation, political engagement, and institutional rebuilding while avoiding internal confrontation, particularly with Hezbollah. The Lebanese Army is highlighted as a neutral guarantor of stability and a cornerstone of state legitimacy. Externally, Lebanon aims for balanced relations with international and regional actors on the basis of state-led diplomacy. The broader objective is a long-term transition from crisis management to genuine state-building, measured by the state’s ability to exercise full authority across its territory and reclaim exclusive decision-making power over security, war, and peace.

Lebanon’s president Jozef Aoun prepares for a significant visit to Washington as part of a broader political shift driven by the U.S.-brokered framework agreement with Israel and upcoming negotiations in Rome. The developments signal a move from military confrontation toward institutional decision‑making, with emphasis on restoring the Lebanese state’s exclusive authority over defense and national security. Progress depends both on American commitment to implementing agreements and on internal Lebanese consensus, particularly regarding Hezbollah’s arms. Regional shifts, including reduced Iranian influence and renewed U.S. engagement, create an opportunity for Lebanon to reassert sovereignty, though success hinges on unified national will and effective use of external support.

Implementation of the Lebanese–Israeli framework agreement is shifting from political negotiation to operational execution, with the United States overseeing practical steps such as phased deployments and the creation of trial zones to test stability. The Lebanese Army’s ability to establish authority in newly vacated areas is central to determining state capacity, while internal political consensus remains a critical hurdle. Israel’s cooperation depends on the effectiveness of Lebanese deployment, making the agreement a test for both sides. Success could strengthen state institutions in southern Lebanon, while failure risks repeating past cycles of unimplemented accords.

A high‑level Syrian diplomatic visit to Beirut signals shifting dynamics as both countries undergo internal and regional transformations. Syria’s post‑war priorities now center on reconstruction and reestablishing regional standing, while Lebanon seeks to rebuild state sovereignty following recent conflict and external mediation efforts. The article argues that relations should evolve from past patterns of influence and intervention toward a state‑to‑state partnership focused on practical cooperation, including borders, refugees, security coordination and economic interests. Overcoming historical baggage is presented as essential for establishing a more balanced and mutually beneficial relationship.

Lebanon faces a pivotal phase shaped by the US‑brokered framework agreement with Israel, renewed Gulf openness, and deepening financial pressure on Hezbollah. International and regional actors increasingly emphasize strengthening state institutions, particularly the Lebanese Army, as the foundation for future stability. Political forces are reassessing their positions amid shifting regional dynamics, while joint US‑Gulf sanctions aim to alter internal power balances by targeting Hezbollah’s financial networks. Israel remains focused on limiting Hezbollah’s military capabilities, reflecting ongoing security tensions. Lebanon’s ability to capitalize on these developments depends on whether its political actors can consolidate state authority and rebuild national decision‑making rather than reverting to crisis management.

The agreement signed in Washington seeks to regulate conflict dynamics on the Lebanese–Israeli border, positioning Lebanon before the challenge of asserting full state sovereignty and testing Israel’s ability to shift from open-ended military deterrence to sustainable political arrangements. Lebanon faces pressure to consolidate authority over all its territory amid the longstanding coexistence of state institutions and armed non-state actors. Israel must determine whether military superiority can translate into lasting stability. The United States acts as a manager of regional balances rather than a guarantor of a comprehensive settlement. The agreement initiates a prolonged phase of mutual testing that will shape both border stability and the broader relationship between power and politics in the Eastern Mediterranean.