Lebanon

Beirut stands at the goal line of a major win for the Middle East, but only if America quarterbacks the last push.

Former military officials and experts from Lebanon and Israel discuss how Beirut’s unsettled political dynamics might affect ongoing implementation of the ceasefire and future peacebuilding efforts.

Cutting aid programs is not inherently wrong—but making those cuts before assessing their specific impact on regional allies and American lives could be disastrous for U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The agreement’s implementation phase is going surprisingly well and has been extended, but maintaining the ceasefire will require officials to resolve the issues in dispute and address Hezbollah’s threats.

The new president and prime minister do not have a strong track record of confronting Hezbollah, but Washington should still be bold in supporting their stated commitments to reform, disarmament, and economic recovery.

Choosing a reform-minded president would be a good first step, but absent a concerted effort to consolidate the setbacks to Hezbollah, the organization will simply reassert its murderous grip.

Tehran’s past efforts to reconstitute the group have passed through more difficult environments than post-Assad Syria, but an economical U.S.-led effort can complicate future smuggling efforts and further other counterterrorism goals in the process.

The group has been greatly diminished by a year of war, but the Lebanese people won’t feel the difference unless the international community pushes Beirut and the LAF to reestablish trust and authority.

In addition to assuaging public fears about the agreement, officials will need to reach a shared understanding with Washington about how to enforce its terms and respond to Hezbollah violations.