Lebanon – “A century ago, the west imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain-not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again.”
Tom Barrack, US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria
When US Envoy to Turkiye and Syria Tom Barrack made this declaration last month in Ankara, it suggested Washington was repudiating the colonial-era borders imposed on the Levant by Britain and France. But Barrack’s actual meaning was far more insidious: The Sykes-Picot agreement may be dead, but now the US intends to redraw the region’s frontiers to suit one purpose only – Israeli expansionism.
US envoy’s agenda: Redrawing the region by dismantling resistance
Lebanon’s fate remains tightly interwoven with that of Syria and occupied Palestine. Any imposed resolution to the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict will inevitably reverberate through both Damascus and Beirut, forcing their governments to make existential choices. Chief among these is the surrender of arms and capabilities, a demand embedded in the US-led effort to transform the region’s balance of power.
Enter Barrack, the Lebanese-American billionaire and close confidant of US President Donald Trump, now repurposed as a roving envoy to Lebanon and Syria. He has since positioned himself as a chief advocate of pulling both Syria and Lebanon into the Abraham Accords, a euphemism for normalizing ties with the occupation state.
Barrack met with top officials in Beirut today, where he was expected to peddle this political reconfiguration under the guise of regional peace.
Maximum pressure and the threat of force
Lebanon is at the sharp end of a US-Israeli campaign to disarm Hezbollah at any cost and within months. The escalation is not a reaction to local dynamics, but rather a consequence of Washington’s regional failures: from the quagmire in Ukraine to its inability to deter Iran or check Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.
With nothing substantive to offer, the US is leaning on coercion to twist arms at the top. Israeli military threats serve as a blunt instrument to corner Lebanese officials into signing off on the resistance’s disarmament – a fantasy the US is now aggressively chasing.
Trump, seeking a legacy boost, is betting on a high-stakes foreign policy gambit: force Lebanon – the last Levantine Arab state still tethered to the Axis of Resistance – into surrender, and break its last defensive stronghold against Israeli expansion.
A new kind of envoy, a new kind of threat
Barrack’s mission departs from the playbook of previous US envoys who, for all their meddling, took Lebanon’s fragility seriously. Not so today. Barrack, who also serves as US ambassador to Turkiye and envoy to Syria, represents a new breed of imperial proxy, unconcerned with sectarian fault lines or civil strife.
Washington now believes Hezbollah is vulnerable. The plan is to crush it politically, and if needed, militarily, even if that means weaponizing the Lebanese army against its own citizens. The Trump administration has made clear it will trade Lebanese stability for US-Israeli hegemony.
According to a Lebanese official cited by Anadolu Agency, Barrack handed Beirut a five-page proposal in June that centered on three main objectives. The first is the monopolization of all weapons under the Lebanese state’s control. The second involves enacting fiscal and economic reforms, including tighter border controls, anti-smuggling efforts, and boosted customs revenues. The third demands a reconfiguration of ties with Syria by demarcating borders and expanding trade.
No timeline is spelled out in the document, but US pressure suggests an expectation for full implementation by year’s end. Lebanon, the official claims, is drafting a unified response based on the ministerial statement and President Joseph Aoun’s inaugural address.
But Beirut has its own demands, including an end to Israeli violations, a full withdrawal from occupied territories, and the launch of reconstruction efforts in the south. For now, Hezbollah’s official position remains undisclosed. Its response is expected to surface in the coming days, as Barrack returns to Beirut.
After meeting with President Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri in Beirut today, Barrack announced that he is “satisfied” with the Lebanese authorities’ response to Washington’s request regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah. At the same time, he warned that Lebanon “will be left behind” if it does not move in line with the ongoing regional changes. Barrack also stated that “Hezbollah is a political party, and it also has an armed wing. Hezbollah needs to see that there is a future for them, and that this path is not meant to be only against them, and that there is an intersection between peace and prosperity for them as well.”
Empty promises, no Israeli restraint
During his last visit, Barrack met Lebanon’s three top officials to pitch a phased disarmament plan, divided by time and geography. He hinted at possible US pressure on Tel Aviv to vacate recently occupied points. But when pressed, he admitted there were no guarantees that Israel would halt its aggression. This is no peace deal. It is an ultimatum.
Barrack’s push marks the culmination of a decades-long campaign to dismantle the region’s anti-imperialist front. With Egypt and Jordan long co-opted, Syria’s Baathist era gutted, and Iraq’s factions fragmented, apart from Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned army, Hezbollah remains the last major armed deterrent to Israeli expansion.
Washington and Tel Aviv understand this. Disarming Hezbollah clears the path for diplomatic normalization not only with Beirut, but also with Syria’s so-called interim government under de facto President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former ISIS chief who went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani, now edging closer to normalization with Tel Aviv.
Capitulation without compensation
The US demands everything and offers nothing. There are no guarantees of Israeli withdrawal. No prisoner releases. No end to airstrikes or assassinations. Not even arms for the Lebanese army or funds for reconstruction.
Instead, Washington continues to throttle the army by blocking weapons transfers and targeting seized stockpiles, cementing its subservience.
Barrack’s so-called solution is a trap. It further strips Lebanon of sovereignty, invites more Israeli strikes across the south, the Bekaa, and even Beirut, and paves the way for sectarian fragmentation under the guise of national reform.
With some domestic factions parroting US-Israeli talking points, the threat is no longer just foreign. Western-backed, right-wing Lebanese elements are gaining narrative traction, openly adopting Tel Aviv’s discourse on resistance weapons. These forces could soon coordinate directly with the occupation state, becoming internal agents of destabilization.
Meanwhile, the proposal ignores the Palestinian refugee question, omits border security mechanisms, and offers no path to deter Israeli incursions. In effect, it sets the stage for a sectarian, security-driven partition of Lebanon.
Divide and conquer: Disarming in stages
Washington’s strategy is clear. It aims to isolate and disarm resistance factions one by one. Last month, the target was Palestinian groups. Now, Hezbollah. The aim is to prevent a unified front by cutting off cross-sectarian solidarity and picking off targets individually.
If these pressures are not absorbed and neutralized, the risks are existential. A major Israeli assault on Lebanon or a manufactured civil conflict is likely. At the same time, extremist groups are resurging in Syria under Sharaa’s watch, a man eager to appease Washington and Tel Aviv at all costs.
Hezbollah and its supporters face a stark choice. They must either surrender to foreign diktats or entrench their defenses and refuse to even entertain a debate on arms as long as threats persist.
This may be the gravest threat to Lebanon’s post-war existence. With the US shedding all pretense of neutrality and openly advocating for a new regional map, the country faces a binary future: resist, or be dismembered.
Lebanon’s salvation hinges on one truth. Only a united front behind the resistance can preserve its sovereignty and shield it from the vultures circling overhead.
Source: The Cradle
