“Lebanon Debate”
It is not a passing detail that the name of Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa is brought up again in the context of the Lebanese equation. The intersecting data reveal that the man received more than one American green light to enter Lebanon, at a very sensitive regional moment. However, this path was not completed, not because of Syrian hesitation, but rather as a result of harsh conditions that Sharia placed on the American side in exchange for entering Lebanon and carrying out the required mission, and its subsequent collision with a clear regional “veto.”
Al-Sharaa, according to the information, did not treat the American proposal as a free opportunity to settle an old vendetta with Hezbollah, but rather presented a heavy basket of demands: restoring the lands in which the Israeli army advanced after the fall of Bashar al-Assad, stopping support for the Druze inside Syria, in addition to a basic demand of arming the Syrian army. He was not satisfied with that, but linked any intervention to an explicit UN resolution that gives it legal cover, and to complex security and political arrangements, making these conditions closer to a comprehensive equation for redrawing the Syrian role, and not just a limited field step.
But behind the request from Syria to enter Lebanon, a primary goal emerges: to disarm Hezbollah, and in particular its long-range missile arsenal stationed in the northern Bekaa. This goal, which intersects with international and regional interests, most notably Israel, constitutes the core of any possible scenario for Syrian entry, and places it within the framework of reshaping the military balance within Lebanon and the region, not just a circumstantial intervention.
Here a pivotal point emerges: Al-Sharaa is well aware that Damascus does not have complete freedom of movement. The decision to enter Lebanon is not taken in Damascus alone, but is governed by an intertwined network of regional balances, with Türkiye at the forefront as a major player.
Ankara, which is observing the rapid transformations in the region, views with concern any scenario that radically weakens Iran. From its point of view, this imbalance opens the door to widespread Israeli expansion, which may reach the limits of its geopolitical encirclement. Therefore, it deals with any Syrian push towards Lebanon as part of a larger scene, and seeks to control it within a framework that prevents Iran from losing its most prominent regional card, namely Hezbollah, and thus avoid accelerating the collapse of the balance that governs the region. Hence, the Turkish role comes as a primary restraining factor, freezing or postponing any Syrian decision to enter.
But this equation is not fixed. Regional experience has proven that transformations may occur quickly, and that “vetoes” fall when interests change. Any change in the balance of power – whether at the level of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation or in Turkish calculations – may reopen the door to a Syrian entry into the Bekaa, in a scene that brings to mind the era of tutelage, but with new faces and equations.
Here, the risk becomes double. Lebanon, which has not yet succeeded in stabilizing its internal balance, may suddenly find itself facing a dual reality: Israeli expansion and occupation on the one hand, and the return of Syrian influence and occupation on the other hand.
In this context, a clear shortcoming in internal engagement emerges. Hezbollah, which for decades was a pivotal player in the Lebanese equation, today appears to be ignoring the ongoing transformations, continuing a policy of denial that does not erase the facts but rather postpones the explosion. As for the Lebanese state, its government and presidency, it faces a direct responsibility that cannot be postponed.
What is required today is not to manage a crisis, but to anticipate it. Rapid political and diplomatic action that restores Lebanon’s position within the international safety net and prevents it from turning into an open arena for settling scores.
Lebanon is facing a pivotal moment: either it imposes itself as a player in shaping its own destiny, or this destiny will be redrawn at the tables of others. The question that cannot be escaped is: Will the old scene be repeated… or is there a last chance to break it?
