Ambassador and emissary Thomas Barrack arriving at the Grand Serail. (Credit: Mohammad Yassin/L'Orient-Le Jour)
With the arrival of Thomas Barrack, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Syria, in Lebanon, Lebanese officials and political actors have been seeking to decipher his true mission. The latter had been surrounded by many rumors, further fueled by major developments on the regional scene.
Beirut is therefore receiving this high-profile visitor with a certain degree of apprehension, as the Lebanese remain divided between two major views: One sees the U.S. as the true instigator of current developments, while the other believes Washington is just backing the Israelis.
According to the first camp, even though the visit was announced before the outbreak of the Israel-Iran war, its timing did not happen by chance. This is clear in the statements of U.S. President Donald Trump, who from the outset had anticipated and even approved the Israeli strikes against Iran. His statements are part of a broader effort to achieve a stable and lasting resolution to the crisis that has plagued the Middle East for over 70 years.
The objective, therefore, was to deliver a decisive blow to what is known as the “Axis of Resistance.” This necessarily involves dismantling Iran’s military capabilities, and perhaps even bringing about the fall of the Islamic Republic’s regime.
According to the second camp, however, it is the Israelis who believe that there is now a rare opportunity to achieve this goal, and they are seeking to draw the U.S. into this decisive battle.
Whichever interpretation one adopts, Barrack’s visit cannot be separated from the recent developments, which inevitably shaped his discussions.
According to initial reports, in addition to addressing the implementation of the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire agreement and UNIFIL's future, Barrack reportedly urged the Lebanese to stay out of the Israel-Iran war, meaning that Hezbollah must not be allowed to take part in it in any way. At the same time, he called for speeding up the state’s monopoly over weapons.
Lebanese officials, who, according to official sources, decided to adopt a unified stance in talks with the American envoy, have firmly stressed Hezbollah’s non-interference in the ongoing regional conflict. At the same time, however, they called for an end to Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
They also pointed out that recent developments have slowed Hezbollah’s disarmament process, particularly since the planned handover of Palestinian weapons to the Lebanese authorities, which was supposed to begin last Monday, has been delayed.
In this vein, the Lebanese officials believe the region is currently in a state of uncertainty, with all the cards reshuffled.
At this point, they believe their position is well-founded. What concerns them, however, is the meaning behind Barrack’s references to the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Indeed, as news of his visit to Lebanon was announced, Barrack wrote on X on May 25 that the Sykes-Picot Agreement [concluded at the start of the last century and which led to the division of influence in the region between the colonial powers of the time, France and Britain, along clearly defined geographic lines] had failed to bring peace to the region and should be replaced by new understandings among the powers currently on the ground.
For Lebanon, this cannot be seen as a mere coincidence, and these references may reflect the actual thought process of Trump, of whom Barrack is a close associate. In this context, some observers highlight another brief remark by Trump, in which he emphasized that he is not seeking a temporary agreement between Iran and Israel, but a lasting solution. They also point to Netanyahu’s repeated statements about his determination to “change the Middle East.”
Yet, more than a year and a half since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, the Israelis appear to see no other solution than what they refer to as the voluntary departure of Palestinians from the area. In Lebanon as well, it seems they are actively seeking to prevent residents from returning to their homes in the south of the Litani River, on the pretext that Hezbollah’s infrastructure there has not been destroyed, despite official Lebanese statements to the contrary.
Some parties further pointed to the episode in which Trump, with a map of Israel in front of him, said that the land is tiny, and that he is trying to expand it with a stroke of the pen.
These Lebanese concerns may be seen as unfounded, but officials are taking all possibilities into account, especially in the current whirlwind that is upending all established dynamics in the region.
In this context, a former official believes that considering the Sykes-Picot agreement as something that should be revised opens the door to all other scenarios, and Lebanon could be directly affected.
If the goal is to find a lasting solution for the region, and if the Iranians — along with all their allies — are weakened, this could further fuel Israel’s desire to expand its territory or sphere of influence at the expense of Lebanon, the Palestinians and possibly even Syria.
The scenario in Lebanon could therefore unfold as follows: Under the pretext that the pace of Hezbollah’s disarmament is slow, and after having, according to their projections, effectively neutralized the Iranians and their allies, the Israelis could launch a large-scale ground operation in southern Lebanon and bring the area under their control. At that point, Lebanon’s position in any negotiations would likely become significantly more difficult.
This scenario may be exaggerated, and the significance of Barrack’s statement regarding the Sykes-Picot Agreement may be overstated. Yet, amid the current climate of widespread confusion, vigilance is essential, precisely to prevent the worst from happening.
This article was translated from L'Orient-Le Jour by Joelle El Khoury.