Beirut, Damascus and the challenge of being a normal country
https://arab.news/4j99g
The Lebanese people often complain about advice from ambassadors and dictates from international financial organizations. They believe that the outside world is paving their road and setting their goals for them. They are annoyed that their country is being treated like a minor; that the world has no faith in its ability to get itself out of the abyss. The abundance of doctors and treatments often deepen the patient's confusion.
There can be no arguing that the Lebanese people, like all other peoples, have the right to address their present and shape their future. However, reclaiming this right cannot be achieved simply by reminding people of the obvious. Hegemonies begin when countries start to break apart under the weight of divisions and interventions. The Lebanese divisions are old and so are the interventions.
The most dangerous thing that can happen to a country is the loss of its ability to take a decision. A lack of this ability depletes what remains of the fortifications that should be available to a sovereign and independent nation. The problem is compounded when the country is surrounded by wars and conflicts that are beyond its ability to either join or distance itself from. And so, the country becomes captive both on the inside and before the outside world.
Al-Sharaa surprised the Syrians, the region and the world. His choice was Syria first and foremost
Ghassan Charbel
The truth is that the Lebanese patient has suddenly found himself floundering in a cycle of wars that erupted after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Then it found itself confronted with the difficult endings of these wars, which were contrary to the goals of the ones who launched the flood and the 'support front.'
The people of the region did not need new experiences to become acquainted with Israel's hostility and the savagery of its army. But what has happened has given the Israeli killing machine the opportunity to go to the extreme in its destruction and killing, even going so far as to commit genocide. Observers of Israel's behavior in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon sense that the balance of power has been broken and is now tipped heavily to the Israeli side.
There is no need to remind the reader of the blood being shed at the aid distribution points in Gaza; no need to explain the meaning of the Israeli army warning residents of Beirut's southern suburbs to evacuate specific buildings before striking. The daily assassinations carried out by Israeli drones in Lebanon hold clear messages and so does the continued destruction of the remaining capabilities of the former Syrian army.
The people of the region do not need someone to explain to them the significance of the collapse of the former Syrian regime. The end of the Assad regime changed certain features and roles in the region. The collapse broke the chain of the so-called Axis of Resistance that started in Tehran and ended in Beirut, passing through Baghdad and Damascus. This is a massive change that confronted officials with very difficult choices.
Ahmad Al-Sharaa entered the Syrian presidential palace and was confronted with dangerous new facts. A country broken and without an army and state institutions. A country drowning in fear and poverty, where millions live in refugee camps near the border. Al-Sharaa had to choose and take decisions. The era of factions means endless wars, the fragmentation of Syria and more blood and death. Al-Sharaa had to convince the Syrians and the world. There needed to be a moment for Syria to catch its breath, regroup and bring in aid.
Al-Sharaa surprised the Syrians, the region and the world. His choice was Syria first and foremost. He has no desire to surrender to old formulas, unyielding beliefs and outdated treatments. He decided to understand the balance of power in the region and the world and deal with it. The obsession of saving Syria and reclaiming it from militias and hegemonies took precedence.
Al-Sharaa sent a frank message that the new Syria wants to be a normal country. One where the state monopolizes control over decisions of war and peace and the possession of arms. This is not an easy task at all. The establishment of a normal state demands respecting local and international laws and ensuring equality between segments of society. It means abandoning the rhetoric of eliminating the other and changing features.
The world is demanding that Lebanon return to being a normal country that can be trusted, helped and supported
Ghassan Charbel
The emergence of such determination encouraged countries eager to help Syria. Al-Sharaa said the new Syria does not want to pose a threat to any of its neighbors. This desire to quit the military aspect of the conflict with Israel paved the way for handshakes and recognitions.
Despite the difficulties, there is a sense that Al-Sharaa's journey has kicked off with regional and international support. This has taken place at the same time as the Lebanese people have been dreaming that their country could also kick off the journey of returning toward being a normal state. This dream was reawakened with the election of Joseph Aoun as president and the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister. The Lebanese people were hopeful as a result of the president's swearing-in speech and the government's policy statement.
Months have since passed and the Lebanese ship has not yet sailed. The conditions that led to Al-Sharaa's arrival to power differ from those that led to Aoun and Salam's arrival. Lebanon's composition is very complicated and uniting the people is not easy. It is evident that Hezbollah's reading of what is taking place in the region is different from those of other Lebanese segments and of Aoun and Salam.
The world is demanding that Lebanon return to being a normal country that can be trusted, helped and supported. Aoun and Salam cannot do this alone. The responsibility equally lies with Speaker Nabih Berri, given his standing in the Shiite community and throughout the country. A return to being a normal state cannot take place without Hezbollah reading how the war ended and what is taking place in Syria. Keeping Lebanon hanging in the Iranian and non-Iranian balances will leave it at risk of wasting its international support.
The world set a condition for the new Syria to agree to become a normal country, and it did. Lebanon's lack of serious collective decision-making to move toward such a goal will leave it vulnerable to many surprises.
This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Meeting Change and Missed Opportunities
The fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime and the rise of Ahmed al-Sharaa to the Syrian presidency is the foundational episode of the regional transformation that is currently underway. It may well be one of the most consequential outcomes of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and its aftermath or even the most consequential strategic shift the region has witnessed since the 1967 defeat. We did not merely see a change at the top of the Syrian regime. The entire regional order that had been built around an Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese axis, whose influence stretched into Iraq and Palestine, has collapsed. A new phase has begun, and the door to the Levant has now been closed to Iranian expansion. The United States has returned to the region through the front door, with its role bolstered by a rare moment of Arab consensus regarding the need to curb the non-Arab spheres of influence that had crystalized over the past two decades. This turning point has drawn unprecedented Arab and international attention, led by Saudi Arabia and crowned by President Donald Trump's meeting with al-Sharaa. Global powers then raced to Damascus as they sought a role in reshaping Syria's regional role and strategic posture. This surge of attention has come as a surprise to Lebanon. The frustration of the Lebanese has raised legitimate questions about the gulf in Arab and international engagement with Syria when compared to Lebanon. Indeed, a change in leadership has also emerged in Beirut, which has now also exited the Syrian and Iranian spheres of influence. How could the spotlight shift away from a country long seen as the 'Arab world's concern' and the 'laboratory of international settlements'? Has the world made up its mind about Beirut? Lebanon, which has sustained Arab and international attention since the 1969 Palestinian crisis, is now squandering opportunity after opportunity, gradually losing what remains of international confidence in the country. Neither limited resources nor Lebanon's fragile political system explain this failure alone; the absence of a unified national vision, political will, and commitment to reform are also crucial factors. At the same time, most Arab states and international powers had been expecting a clear stance on the key question of sovereignty in the wake of regional and domestic changes. The authorities were expected to consolidate the state's monopoly over arms, fight corruption, and affirm judicial independence. Instead, Lebanon chose ambiguity, seemingly unaware of the significance of what has happened in Syria, Iran's retreat from the Levant, and Hezbollah's waning power. The result, three months into the new government's tenure, has been stagnation, kicking the can down the road, and petty deals. Hesitation continues to prevail, fueled by a fear of the specter of civil war and the daunting task of dismantling Hezbollah's deep entrenchment in the public sector, Lebanon's security apparatus and other state institutions The authorities are also reluctant to embark on the complex and delicate process of disentangling the Shiite community from Hezbollah. It seems that Lebanon is being steadily pushed to the margins, while Syria has been granted a historic opportunity backed by broad Arab and international support. Lebanon has received little more than initiatives that lack meaningful political backing, despite the formation of a new government that signals a desire for change. Rather than deliberate neglect, this state of affairs is a reflection of deepening despair over Lebanon's ability to seize the moment and engage with clear messages. Chief among them is the demand for a clear political decision on ending all forms of armed resistance, deeming Hezbollah's weapons as illegitimate, setting a timeframe for its disarmament and pursuing a permanent truce with Israel similar to that of the 1949 armistice. These steps would strip Israel of its pretexts, though it is nonetheless unlikely to play a constructive role in either Lebanon or Syria. The current ultra-right Israeli government is gripped by paranoia. It sees every political shift in an Arab country as a direct threat, demanding everything while offering no political concessions and favoring military solutions over political compromise. The successes it has achieved in its latest war have only hardened this disposition and deepened its delusion that force alone can dictate realities on the ground, even if this comes at the cost of regional stability and risks straining Israel's relations with the Trump administration, which seeks to broaden the Abraham Accords. In the end, the difference between Syria and Lebanon lies not in the scale of their respective crises, but in each country's ability to respond to those crises. The collapse of the Syrian regime has triggered a structural and strategic metamorphosis that has drawn in international and Arab actors eager to fill the vacuum and redraw the regional map. Syria finds itself at a moment that mirrors the post-Cold War era. This is a moment of reckoning, reshuffling, and opening up to new possibilities. Lebanon, by contrast, remains caught in a grey zone. It is neither fully collapsing nor genuinely recovering, content to manage its crises without resolving them. As Damascus transforms into the foundation of a new regional order in which it plays an active role, Beirut is fading from the world's view. The bell of transformation has rung, and opportunities do not wait for those who squander them. In a world ruled by hard reality rather than good intentions, hedging and delay no longer convince anyone.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Information obtained by Iran ‘seem to refer' to Israeli nuclear research site: Grossi
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday that the information Iran claimed it seized regarding Israel's nuclear program 'seems to refer' to the country's Soreq Nuclear Research Center, the first acknowledgment outside of Tehran of the theft. The office of Israel's prime minister had no immediate response on the remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, who spoke during a news conference in Vienna. The alleged theft comes at a time of renewed tensions over Iran's nuclear program, which enriches uranium a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels and looks poised to reject a US proposal over a possible deal on its atomic program. 'We have seen some reports in the press. We haven't had any official communication about this,' Grossi told reporters. 'In any case, this seems to refer to Soreq, which is a research facility which we inspect by the way. We don't inspect other strategic parts of the program, but this part of the program we do inspect.' He did not elaborate on where he received his information, though the IAEA maintains a confidential reporting system for nations to report security incidents involving their nuclear programs. Soreq, located 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of Tel Aviv, is a national laboratory for nuclear science established in Israel in 1958, engaged in nuclear science, radiation safety and applied physics. The IAEA has so-called 'item-specific safeguards agreements' with Israel, Pakistan and India, all countries that are not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Under Israel's agreement, the IAEA monitors Soreq but has no access to Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona, believed to provide the fuel for Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons program. Over the weekend, Iranian state television and later the country's intelligence minister claimed without offering evidence that Tehran seized an 'important treasury' of information regarding Israel's nuclear program. Israel, whose undeclared atomic weapons program makes it the only country in the Middle East with nuclear bombs, has not acknowledged any such Iranian operation targeting it – though there have been arrests of Israelis allegedly spying for Tehran amid the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Iranian Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib claimed thousands of pages of documents had been obtained which would be made public soon. Among them were documents related to the US, Europe and other countries which, he claimed, had been obtained through 'infiltration' and 'access to the sources.' He did not elaborate on the methods used. However, Khatib was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2022 over directing 'cyber espionage and ransomware attacks in support of Iran's political goals.' For Iran, the claim may be designed to show the public that the theocracy was able to respond to a 2018 Israeli operation that spirited out what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a 'half ton' of documents related to Iran's program. That Israeli announcement came just before President Donald Trump in his first term unilaterally withdrew America from Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which greatly limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. This week, Western nations are expect to go before the IAEA's Board of Governors with a proposal to find Iran in noncompliance with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. It could be the first time in decades – and likely would kick the issue to the UN Security Council. That could see one of the Western countries involved in the 2015 nuclear deal invoke the so-called 'snapback' of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. The authority to restore those sanctions by the complaint of any member of the original 2015 nuclear deal expires in October – putting the West on a clock to exert pressure on Tehran over its program before losing that power.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Saudi interior minister commends security forces for Hajj efforts
MAKKAH: Saudi Minister of Interior Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Naif has conveyed greetings and congratulations from King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to personnel involved in implementing Hajj security plans following the successful completion of the season. This includes members of the Ministry of Interior, the Presidency of State Security, and supporting military agencies from the Ministry of National Guard, Ministry of Defense, and General Intelligence Presidency. The minister's remarks were made during a meeting at the ministry's headquarters in Makkah with senior officials, commanders of security sectors, Hajj security forces, and supporting military and security agencies. Prince Abdulaziz affirmed that following the directives of the leadership — who provided all necessary resources and ensured coordination among government and security bodies — the approved plans for this year's Hajj were successfully executed. Prince Abdulaziz, as chairman of the Hajj Supreme Committee, praised the security and military sectors for their unity, sincerity, and dedication during this year's season. He emphasized that their work reflected a strong sense of national and religious responsibility, honoring the privilege of serving pilgrims.
