Between isolation and escalation: Lebanon pays the price of appeasement

Lebanon is entering an exceptionally dangerous phase, as warning messages continue to pour in from major international capitals. These communications reflect growing Arab and international frustration with the Lebanese authorities’ failure to honor their commitments most notably their pledge to ensure that all weapons remain under the exclusive authority of the state.

While expressions of discontent were once conveyed discreetly by international and Arab envoys in closed-door meetings with Lebanese officials, they have now spilled into the public sphere. They dominate media coverage, appear in newspaper columns, and are openly voiced by foreign officials on social media platforms an unmistakable sign that global patience with Lebanon’s political leadership is rapidly eroding.

The most recent and arguably the most alarming indicator came when Washington canceled scheduled meetings for the Lebanese Army Commander during his planned visit to the U.S. capital. This unprecedented step in the long history of U.S. Lebanese military cooperation sent the clearest signal yet of Washington’s deep dissatisfaction with Lebanese officials. The Lebanese Army has for decades been considered a steadfast partner of the United States, consistently receiving American support; the abrupt cancellation therefore speaks volumes.

The regional landscape, including Lebanon’s own internal situation, is shifting into a new and perilous stage one that requires swift and decisive action, not procrastination or attempts to buy time. Yet Lebanese authorities have so far shown little understanding of the gravity of the moment, and no readiness to engage with it seriously.

For many in Lebanon, Independence Day was expected to be an opportunity for President Joseph Aoun to recalibrate the country’s faltering trajectory especially in the aftermath of Washington’s cancellation of the Army Commander’s meetings, and amid mounting international warnings of a potential Israeli war should Lebanon persist in its evasive approach to Hezbollah’s arsenal.

Yet the speech fell short of expectations, extending the familiar pattern of downplaying the sensitivity of the moment and the gravity of the challenges ahead. The president went even further, asserting that he stands in “the right position and the right direction” a statement that raised even more questions about his understanding of the phase and the political courage it demands. Meanwhile, Hezbollah remains firmly committed to its arsenal, with its Secretary-General openly declaring efforts to rearm and rebuild its military structure. Lebanon, in turn, stands at the edge of a major Israeli escalation triggered by this weaponry operating outside state authority.

The picture grew even darker with the assassination of Haitham Tbatabai, Hezbollah’s Chief of Staff, followed by the remarks of Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, who reaffirmed the “resistance” path and the party’s grip on its arms addressing the Lebanese with an air of condescension when he claimed that Hezbollah is “more important to them than water and bread.”

All these developments leave no doubt that Lebanon is not in “the right position and the right direction.” The right position begins with placing all weapons exclusively under the authority of the Lebanese state, across every inch of Lebanese territory. And the right direction is the one that spares Lebanon and its people a new Israeli war not the one that entrenches hesitation and appeasement, keeping the state hostage to the calculations of others. Today, the combination of official paralysis, Hezbollah’s intransigence, and Iran’s dominance is steering the country toward precisely what the state should be working tirelessly to avoid.

Lebanon now finds itself in deepening regional and international isolation, as the drums of war grow louder overhead. Meanwhile, the political leadership appears to have abdicated its responsibilities, leaving the country hostage to Hezbollah’s choices that serve an external regional project, one aligned with the doctrine and ambitions of the “Wilayat al-Faqih,” at the expense of the Lebanese state and its people.