Integration, Not Confrontation!
It is true that translating Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s visit to the White House into concrete political results will require time and sustained effort, for many reasons. It is equally true, however, that appearances matter in relations between states, particularly when dealing with a president as unpredictable as Donald Trump, who is known at times to place greater weight on personal chemistry than on institutional considerations in his dealings with heads of state and government around the world. The scene in the Oval Office where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was publicly dressed down before the world’s cameras remains vividly etched in people’s memories.
For that reason, the symbolic dimension of presidential summits cannot be dismissed, especially for a small country such as Lebanon, whose greatest asset remains the reputation of its people, who have succeeded across the globe by integrating into the societies that welcomed them and rising to the highest political, economic, and social positions. It now appears that the old maxim, “Lebanon’s strength is its weakness,” has once again resurfaced in Lebanese political discourse, particularly after the collapse of every slogan built around the so called “balance of deterrence” and similar concepts that lost all meaning in the aftermath of the wars of 2024 and 2026. Whatever the case, it has always been a profoundly misguided notion, and returning to it would be a grave mistake.
While it is true that Lebanon cannot realistically build the kind of military arsenal that would allow it to defend its territory and borders on the same scale as other states, relying exclusively on the country’s “friends,” as one politician has suggested, is no solution either. No state’s diplomacy or foreign policy can be built solely on friendships. In politics, there are no permanent friendships. What serves one country’s interests today may no longer do so tomorrow, without explanation or justification.
No less important than the Lebanese-American summit were the political remarks President Aoun delivered during the reception hosted by the Lebanese Embassy in Washington. His speech reflected a profound understanding of the dilemmas confronting Lebanon today and of the means to overcome them by reconciling the supreme national interest, sovereignty, and the state’s monopoly over arms with the equally vital need to avoid igniting internal conflict or shifting regional confrontations onto the Lebanese arena, thereby jeopardizing stability and civil peace.
The president’s assertion that Hezbollah is not a mercenary force was particularly significant. Its members are the sons of the South, however profound the disagreements many Lebanese may have with them, and however much their religious doctrine has become intertwined with a political project whose foundations extend beyond Lebanon’s borders and capacities. The answer lies not in confrontation but in integration, and integration can only succeed through a comprehensive national vision capable of rebuilding trust between the state and the different components of Lebanese society.
The gap separating those different components of Lebanese society from the state continues to widen for many reasons. Some are rooted in deeply rooted convictions embraced by segments of the population, convictions that cannot easily be abandoned or challenged through competing political, social, or, even more so, religious narratives. Others stem from a long historical legacy of the state’s inability, and at times its unwillingness, to protect southern Lebanon and its people, leaving them exposed to Israeli attacks, even before Hezbollah came into existence. Still others are linked to the state’s chronic weakness, the concentration of economic activity in the capital and major cities, and the deliberate or unintended neglect of rural areas, agriculture, traditional crafts, and small local industries, all of which are essential to enabling communities to remain on their land.
Against that backdrop, it is essential that the measures to be taken in the coming phase proceed in parallel, gradually narrowing this deep divide. The state must move swiftly to fill the vacuum on the political, security, and economic fronts, asserting its presence where it has long been absent. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s symbolic act of planting the Lebanese flag in Zawtar al-Gharbiya following the Israeli withdrawal fits squarely within that approach. It should now be followed by similar initiatives at every level.
If this is one of the essential tasks on the domestic front, the corresponding priority abroad is to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces as the principal guarantor of civil peace, enabling them to fully discharge their responsibilities, both in safeguarding internal stability and in enforcing the state’s monopoly over arms. That objective must be pursued first and foremost in implementation of the Taif Agreement, before it is seen as a response to any external demand, and as a safeguard against further unrestrained wars that have repeatedly brought devastation and national collapse upon Lebanon.
Strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces, enhancing their capabilities, and further reinforcing them constitutes the cornerstone of the next phase, without undermining their military doctrine, at least not until the situation in southern Lebanon has become fully clear, Israel has completed its withdrawal, and the occupied territory has been fully recovered.
The state alone remains the fundamental guarantor of all Lebanese, even if, under the current political circumstances, it does not yet possess the means to provide complete protection. Part of its ability to fulfill that responsibility also depends on its capacity to rally the Lebanese around its national project, for every parallel project has ultimately proved a resounding failure.