Lebanon finds itself at one of the most critical junctures in its modern history. How did it get here, and where might it be headed?
Note: The text was authored on November 27, 2024
Lebanon finds itself at one of the most critical junctures in its modern history. The convergence of prolonged political and economic instability, the persistent influence of regional actors, and recent military developments have created a situation that not only destabilizes the state but could also have far-reaching implications for the Middle East as a whole. Israel’s military operation, launched on September 23, 2023, has reopened deep wounds in southern Lebanon—a region historically marked by wars, occupations, and persistent geopolitical struggles. These developments prompt reflection on Lebanon’s future, the role of Hezbollah, the presence of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and broader geopolitical consequences.
Since the 1970s, southern Lebanon has been a flashpoint for conflicts involving Israel, Palestinian groups, and later Hezbollah. Israeli invasions in 1978, 1982, 1996, and 2006 devastated infrastructure and left lasting trauma among local communities. These conflicts reshaped the socio-political fabric of southern Lebanon, turning it into a symbol of resistance and suffering. When Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah claimed a significant political victory, presenting itself as the force that had successfully driven out the occupiers. This narrative earned Hezbollah legitimacy not only among the Shia community but also among other segments of Lebanese society. However, the situation changed dramatically after the 2006 war. Although Hezbollah demonstrated its ability to challenge the Israeli military, its political and military ambitions have since expanded far beyond Lebanon’s borders. Its involvement in the Syrian conflict in support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its growing dependence on Iran have turned Hezbollah into a key instrument of Tehran’s regional policy, while simultaneously drawing criticism from within Lebanon itself. Many Lebanese see Hezbollah as a destabilizing force, prioritizing external agendas over national interests.
UNIFIL: A Mission Under Pressure
Established in 1978 after Israel’s first invasion, UNIFIL has long been regarded as a stabilizing force in the region. Following the 2006 war, its mandate was significantly expanded, and its troop numbers increased to nearly 13,000. Nevertheless, the mission’s effectiveness is often questioned. UNIFIL faces pressures from both sides: Israel accuses it of passivity toward Hezbollah’s activities, while Hezbollah restricts its movements and occasionally attacks its units. Recently, Israeli strikes targeting UNIFIL forces have further fueled debates about the mission’s ability to fulfill its role in the region. These strikes, coupled with calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for UNIFIL’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon, have sparked international criticism, particularly from France. For UNIFIL to remain relevant, its mandate will need to be redefined and adapted to new realities.
One possibility being discussed is replacing UNIFIL with an Arab peacekeeping mission that might enjoy greater trust from both sides. However, such a move would require coordination among regional powers—a prospect that seems unlikely in the current geopolitical environment. Alternatively, the recently brokered (as of November 27, 2024) ceasefire, reflecting elements of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, could provide a framework for future stability. The ceasefire grants the United States oversight, including the right to authorize Israeli military action if its security is perceived as threatened. This has raised speculation about the potential deployment of U.S. or French troops, either in place of or alongside UN peacekeepers. Such a shift could fundamentally alter the dynamics of international engagement in Lebanon, though it carries its own risks of escalation.
Hezbollah’s Transforming Role
On the other side of the ceasefire agreement stands Hezbollah, long regarded as a symbol of resistance against Israeli occupation. After Israel’s 2000 withdrawal, Hezbollah focused on consolidating its position in Lebanese politics and strengthening its military capabilities. By refusing to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions, Hezbollah has remained a “state within a state,” perpetuating Lebanon’s instability.
Today, Hezbollah operates primarily as a tool of Iran’s regional strategy. Its involvement in the Syrian war and military activities beyond Lebanon’s borders demonstrate that its interests extend well beyond the country’s territorial confines. However, Hezbollah is not merely a proxy for Iran, as is often suggested. To a considerable degree, it is an autonomous actor with its own interests and mechanisms for pursuing them, albeit heavily reliant on Iranian financial and material support. The current reduction in Iranian backing poses a critical challenge for Hezbollah. Tehran, preoccupied with priorities such as the conflicts in Yemen and Syria and maintaining cohesion in Iraq, appears unwilling to provide direct military support to Hezbollah. If this trend continues, Hezbollah could face not only a loss of international backing but also internal fragmentation. Its leadership will be forced to navigate between its dual roles as a regional actor and a domestic political force, which could exacerbate tensions within its own ranks.
Lebanon’s Uncertain Future
Lebanon’s future remains uncertain and fraught with challenges. The country is paralyzed politically and economically, deeply divided over issues such as Hezbollah’s role, relations with Israel, and the implementation of UN resolutions. A key question is whether Lebanon can overcome these divisions and restore its state functionality. The lack of a coherent national vision exacerbates the difficulties, leaving Lebanon vulnerable to external influences and domestic unrest. Hezbollah faces a pivotal dilemma: continuing its current trajectory risks isolating it both internationally and domestically. Transforming into a political party without military capabilities could pave the way for greater stability but would also mean losing its identity as a “resistance movement” and the only actor capable of confronting Israel militarily. This transformation, however, might help ease internal political tensions and strengthen state institutions, though it is unlikely to happen without significant external pressure and incentives.
UNIFIL, too, must undergo significant transformation to remain relevant. This could include closer collaboration with the Lebanese Armed Forces, stricter oversight of Hezbollah’s military activities, and a redefinition of its mandate to better align with the needs of local communities. On the international level, Western states and regional players such as Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates must take a more active role in resolving the crisis. Investments in infrastructure, economic support, and institution-building could help Lebanon overcome its current predicament and strengthen its fragile institutions.
Regional and Global Stakes
The internal dynamics of Lebanon and its regional security environment are shaped not only by its immediate neighbors, Israel and Syria but also by a myriad of local and global actors. The Middle East remains a battleground for competing interests, from Iran and Saudi Arabia to Russia, the United States, and European powers. The involvement of these actors in Lebanon reflects their broader strategic goals, whether related to energy resources, security concerns, or ideological influence. The recently brokered ceasefire is a temporary measure that underscores the fragility of the current situation. For Lebanon to stabilize, a concerted effort by both regional and international players is required. However, the competing agendas of these actors complicate any prospects for a unified approach, leaving Lebanon to navigate its challenges in an increasingly fragmented global landscape.
Whether Lebanon becomes a model of transformation and stability or a symbol of enduring crisis will depend on decisions made in the coming months. Lebanon has the potential to play a crucial role in regional stability, but only if it can address its political, economic, and security challenges. Achieving this will require not only domestic reforms but also a recalibration of its relationships with regional and global powers. Stabilizing the country and the broader region is an immensely complex task that requires both strategic foresight and the willingness of all involved to prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains.
