Who Will Step Forward to Save Lebanon?

Lebanon’s compounded crisis—triggered by the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons—continues to escalate day after day like a rolling fireball, driven by American pressure and threats, Israeli maneuvers along the northern border, domestic paralysis, an eerie and total Arab silence, and an international stance that is both mute and deeply suspect in its intentions.

Lebanon—both state and people—alone is paying the price for the corruption of some of its politicians and officials, the political immaturity of both its opposition and loyalists, the negligence of its friends, the indifference of many of its Arab brothers, and the cruelty and arrogance of its enemy, Israel. It is not in Israel’s interest for Lebanon to be a safe and stable country; rather, it seeks to keep the Lebanese “thorn in its side” alive and useful—serving as justification for continued intervention and aggression, and for sustaining its narrative of perpetual threat.

Forcing the Lebanese army—despite its modest capabilities (ranked 111th globally out of 145 countries)—into a confrontation with Hezbollah would be a “magic recipe” for planting the seeds of civil war. The alternative is unrestricted Israeli aggression across Lebanon, alongside a freeze on reconstruction and international aid—pushing the country as a whole to the edge of political, economic, and security collapse.

This raises the fundamental question: Have the Arabs and their League become incapable of proposing an initiative akin to the Taif Agreement—one that resolves this file through a “no victor, no vanquished” formula? An initiative that safeguards Lebanon’s security and future, establishes national reconciliation, and accommodates all interests without humiliating one side or defeating another—an initiative born of sincere intentions, pursued through honest mechanisms, and backed by international support to ensure both success and effective implementation.

Such an initiative may be the only viable path to helping Hezbollah climb down gracefully, while signaling to Iran that Lebanon is no longer one of its regional claws. It would reassure Lebanon’s Sunnis and Christians that no one can confiscate their security or impose a vision upon them. And it would send a clear message to Washington and Tel Aviv that Arabs are still capable of managing their own crises, reuniting their fractured ranks, and shaping their region’s destiny.

If properly designed and prepared, this initiative could establish a formula that preserves Lebanese sovereignty, civil peace, and regional stability—preventing both civil war and confrontation with Israel through a gradual, balanced process that respects Lebanon’s unique fabric and ensures fairness for all.

Who could object to limiting weapons to the Lebanese state in line with the Taif Agreement and international resolutions? Who could oppose a national dialogue leading to new constitutional foundations that strengthen democracy and combat marginalization? Who should resent efforts to persuade Hezbollah to transform into a civilian political party operating through parliament and state institutions—voluntarily abandoning armed activity through dialogue and persuasion, not coercion—under Lebanese state sponsorship and Arab and international support, in a manner that preserves dignity and national unity?

To reassure all parties, the initiative could be built on gradual implementation tied to reciprocal commitments—especially from regional and international actors, most notably Israel—ensuring balance and trust. Each step would be linked to concrete counter-steps within an agreed timeline. There should be credible guarantees that Lebanese territory will not become an open battlefield after disarmament, alongside international commitments—under UN supervision and backed by the United States and France—preventing aggression, expediting final border demarcation, and ensuring Israeli withdrawal from any occupied Lebanese lands.

Guarantees must also ensure Hezbollah remains a legitimate political actor and essential national component—free from retaliation, exclusion, or persecution. A comprehensive development plan should be launched for areas most affected by conflict—particularly the south, the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs—funded by Arab and international partners so communities feel that the post-weapons era brings security and prosperity.

The initiative should culminate in a comprehensive settlement balancing sovereignty with reassurance, overseen by international monitoring under UN supervision, alongside military and financial support for the Lebanese army and an international donor conference immediately following a national agreement.

If intentions are genuine, President Donald Trump could play a pivotal role in securing Israeli commitments—halting violations, withdrawing forces from Lebanese territory, mobilizing economic aid, and rallying international backing through the UN Security Council to provide the legal and political framework for implementation.

The European Union could support reconstruction and development, while a UN monitoring mission ensures compliance in coordination with the Lebanese government and army.

Success would restore the balance between security and politics—replacing the logic of weapons as protection with the logic of the state. True safety comes not from militias, but from a strong state and unified army backed by legitimacy and Arab and international support.

Under such an initiative, trust between citizens and the state would be rebuilt. The army would become the sole defender of the nation. The state would reclaim exclusive sovereign authority. Lebanon would finally move toward one state, one weapon, and one decision—rather than remaining an arena for others’ conflicts and agendas.