November 8, 2026
The circular of the Governor of the Bank of Lebanon suspending approvals related to medical and hospitalization for the bank’s employees at both the “Great Messenger Hospital” and the “LMC” Center, raised broad questions about the background of the decision and its possible repercussions. This measure comes in light of a series of measures witnessed in the last phase, which raises fears of the expansion of the scope of restrictions to include additional aspects of economic and institutional life, and raises a problem related to the limits of the influence of external pressures on the decisions of official institutions and the extent to which their policies are adapted to American requirements.
The most prominent path in the background of the decision dates back to October 2026, when the Bank of Lebanon withdrew the local license of the Iran Export Bank and began liquidating its operations, giving it until the beginning of 2027 to transfer its clients’ accounts. University professor and financial expert Bilal Alama explained that the accounts of the “Great Messenger” Hospital are linked bankingly to the Saderat Bank of Iran, and with the withdrawal of its license, the continuation of direct financial transfers began to raise problems related to compliance and oversight, which led to stopping them in order to avoid the risks of dealing with a bank whose license was withdrawn, while maintaining the right of the employees of the Bank of Lebanon to receive treatment, pay expenses, and then recover them. As for the inclusion of the “LMC” center in the same procedure, according to Alama, it requires an additional official clarification of the nature of its banking relationships due to the lack of data proving that its status matches.
These developments fall within the context of Basic Circular No. 170 issued by the Bank of Lebanon in July 2025, which imposed precautionary measures to prevent dealing with unlicensed entities or those subject to foreign sanctions. Although the Bank of Lebanon has confirmed that its administrative and supervisory measures are devoid of political dimensions, Alama believes that their timing intersects with the escalation of American pressures to dry up the sources of funding for the entities subject to sanctions, and Lebanon’s fear that its banking sector will be exposed to additional sanctions or lose its relationships with correspondent banks, which makes the impact of the stressful international environment a factor that cannot be ignored.
The danger of this path, according to Alama, lies in the possibility of the audit extending to include other sectors such as health, insurance, and trade, as well as the impact of restrictions on employees, patients, and citizens with regard to medical coverage, transfers, and payment of supplier dues. He stressed the need to separate financial compliance requirements from citizens’ right to treatment, so that workers and beneficiaries do not bear the cost of banking and political procedures.
He concluded by emphasizing that Lebanon, although it does not have the luxury of ignoring international financial standards, cannot make its decisions hostage to ambiguous external pressures. The responsibility remains on the government and the Bank of Lebanon to announce the legal basis for these measures, determine the criteria for their application, and distinguish between proven violations and mere suspicion, in order to protect the continuity of basic services, the sovereignty of institutions, and the rights of citizens.
