Lebanon has had a history of violent civil war and political interference by Syria, which occupied the country until 2005. Since Hezbollah and Israel have had ongoing conflicts, there are still disputes along Lebanon’s borders with Syria and Israel. The USA has tried to help Lebanon achieve peace and prosperity, as instability in Lebanon could affect the whole region.
Lebanon faces significant challenges, including a collapsing economy, failing state institutions, the lasting impact of the Beirut port explosion, and the strain of hosting many refugees. Lebanon is also close to war, with increasing tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, which could lead to broader regional conflicts. Hezbollah is a key ally of Iran, and if conflict starts, pro-Iran militants from Syria and Lebanon, as well as increased activity from Houthi and Iraqi militias, could threaten US interests in the region.
The USA played a key role in guiding the United Nations Security Council to pass Resolution 1701, which helped end the war between Hezbollah and Israel. However, the main goals of the resolution— to prevent any armed groups from being south of the Litani River except for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and to disarm all armed groups in Lebanon— were not fully achieved. Because of this, Lebanon is now at risk of becoming a centre of regional conflict, which could involve the USA.
Since the Hamas attack on October 7, Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into a conflict with Israel without the government’s involvement, leading to escalating attacks and tensions along the Lebanon-Israel border. This could turn into a larger war at any moment. The US quickly sent naval forces to the Eastern Mediterranean to try to contain the Israel-Gaza war and to deter Hezbollah. Washington has been working to prevent a larger war.
As yet, there are no signs of the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah stopping, as both sides seem to be trying to change the rules of engagement on the battlefield. The conflict has displaced over 150,000 residents from both South Lebanon and North Israel. Israeli airstrikes into South Lebanon have forced more than 100,000 residents from their homes and caused significant damage to the economy, environment, and infrastructure.
Similarly, Hezbollah’s attacks into Israel have displaced around 60,000 residents and affected North Israel’s infrastructure and economy. The longer the violence continues, the greater the risk of a larger, uncontrollable war. In response, the US has advanced the Hochstein initiative, which aims to reduce the conflict despite ongoing skirmishes. The strategy focuses on reducing Hezbollah’s presence near the border, increasing the presence of LAF and UNIFIL south of the Litani River, and encouraging displaced residents from Israel and Lebanon to return home.
The conflict in Gaza affects negotiations on the Lebanon-Israel border. Hezbollah insists the war in Gaza must end before they stop their attacks on Israel. US President Joe Biden’s support for a ceasefire in Gaza could provide an opportunity for both sides to reduce their attacks. However, Israel’s strategy has changed since October 7, and it now prioritizes destroying Hezbollah by forcefully striking Lebanon. There is concern that once Israel finishes its operations in Gaza, it will shift focus to Lebanon.
In 2022, the USA helped mediate a maritime dispute between Israel and Lebanon, allowing for natural gas exploration and reducing conflict in that area. Demarcating the Lebanon-Israel border, especially difficult areas like Northern Ghajjar and Shebaa Farms, can help stabilize the region and protect civilians from future wars. Short-, medium-, and long-term steps can pacify the border, starting with enforcing an 8-10 km buffer zone on the Lebanese side, free of non-state armed groups and secured by the LAF and UNIFIL. This would also require stopping Israeli attacks and overflights of Lebanese territory
Maintaining this buffer zone would help implement UNSCR 1701. The long-term goal is the full disarmament of Hezbollah, enabling the Lebanese government to have full control over its territory. However, the immediate risk of war requires a gradual approach, prioritizing UNSCR 1701’s call for an area free of armed groups between the Blue Line and the Litani River. Strengthening the LAF is crucial for restoring Lebanese sovereignty.Although the LAF has struggled to assert itself without clashing with Hezbollah, it remains a respected institution across Lebanon’s divided society. Supporting the LAF is critical for short-term mediation success and for its increased deployment to Lebanon’s border with Syria, which is used for illegal activities like drug and arms trafficking.
Short- and medium-term challenges include keeping the Lebanon-Israel land border issue separate from the Israel-Gaza War and making a land border agreement despite Lebanon not having a president. The USA should aim for a lasting solution. Past approaches, like the 1996 ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, allowed some cross-border attacks. This was different from the 2006 UNSCR 1701, which called for an end to violence and for disarming Hezbollah.
A comprehensive US-Iran policy needs to recognize Iran’s disruptive role in the region and address the damage caused by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies, holding Iran accountable for their actions. Failure to do so will only strengthen Iran’s influence, harming US strategic interests and limiting Washington’s ability to respond to global challenges. This policy should combine diplomacy, with the Gulf as a key partner, to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and curb the influence of its proxies, while keeping military options available to protect US interests
Though hard to implement, UNSCR 1701 is the only framework for stable peace along the Lebanon-Israel border. Hochstein’s gradual approach might achieve its full implementation. In 2006, the Lebanese government helped create the resolution. They convinced the USA not to use UN Chapter VII, which allows military action, to make the resolution acceptable to the Lebanese people. Today, Lebanon has a caretaker government that cannot enforce a ceasefire or control Hezbollah’s actions. Lebanon has had no president for over a year, and Hezbollah is blocking the election by pushing its candidate, Suleiman Frangieh, while the opposition has other candidates. Only a reform-minded president can improve Lebanon’s economy and help stabilize the Lebanon-Israel border.
US leadership should work with the Quintet (Egypt, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) to help elect a president in Lebanon. In the past, lack of unity and US leadership has hindered this group’s effectiveness. The Quintet should not suggest their own candidates but should help Lebanese factions agree on a candidate. The US must lead in unifying the Quintet and using its diplomatic power to support the Lebanese people’s call for a capable, reform-oriented government.
The Lebanese government, combined with the partial enforcement of the 1989 Ta’if Agreement, allowed both state and non-state groups to exploit the country, worsening its decline. During this time, Hezbollah, supported by Iran, successfully gained local support and used the state’s weaknesses to maintain its independence and weapons.
While Hezbollah focused on its goals, the political elite, distracted by internal competition, misused and wasted state resources along with business elites. This mismanagement led to economic collapse and widespread poverty among the Lebanese people. To stabilize Lebanon, it is crucial to address the close ties between Hezbollah and the country’s elite and restore trust in state institutions and the formal economy.
However, over four years of continuous crises have led to a rise in the informal economy, changing the nation’s economic structure with serious consequences. This increase in unregulated activities is undermining the state’s legitimacy. Meanwhile, hyperinflation, rising unemployment, and food insecurity are making life harder for the most vulnerable citizens, leaving most Lebanese people in deep poverty with scarce access to basic services like electricity and clean water.
Lebanon also hosts the highest number of refugees per capita, which adds pressure on the economy and society, increasing social tensions. Essential public services like healthcare and education are at risk of collapsing under the weight of these crises. If unchecked, this damage could destabilize the region. The growing informal sector has turned Lebanon into a centre for illegal activities, sanctions evasion, money laundering, drug trafficking, and unsafe storage of hazardous materials, as shown by the Beirut Port explosion.
Accountability and reform are essential to ending the impunity that allows the harmful alliance between Hezbollah and a corrupt political class, supported by business elites. Broader reforms will ensure that international aid after the conflict reaches affected areas effectively and is not lost to corruption or mismanagement. The International Monetary Fund (IMF)-led recovery programme aims to restore financial stability and improve governance and transparency.
However, stakes, including politicians and banking elites, have blocked the necessary reforms. Parliament and the government have been unwilling to implement them. A strong policy for Lebanon must recognize the harmful relationship between the corrupt political elite, who have looted state resources and concentrated power, and Hezbollah, which has significant influence over political institutions due to its military strength. Hezbollah is not just a Lebanese issue. It undermines Lebanese state institutions and erodes state sovereignty while playing a key role in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” The announcement of Iran’s “unity of fronts” strategy named Beirut as its operational headquarters, with Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in charge.
A comprehensive US-Iran policy needs to recognize Iran’s disruptive role in the region and address the damage caused by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies, holding Iran accountable for their actions. Failure to do so will only strengthen Iran’s influence, harming US strategic interests and limiting Washington’s ability to respond to global challenges. This policy should combine diplomacy, with the Gulf as a key partner, to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and curb the influence of its proxies, while keeping military options available to protect US interests.
