Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is author of ‘Black Wave’ and an FT contributing editor
Three weeks into what feels like a mini-third world war for many in the region, the world’s attention is rightly focused on Iran, the Gulf, oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz while trying to decipher the intentions of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But my focus is on Lebanon not only because I’m Lebanese but because the genesis of today’s conflagration lies in 1980s Beirut, when the 1979 Iranian revolution collided with the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. How the tiny Mediterranean nation emerges from this sixth Israeli military campaign against it could determine the shape of the region for years to come — regardless of the outcome in Tehran.
In 1982, after Israel’s invasion forced into exile the Palestinian militants launching rockets at it from Lebanon, Benjamin Netanyahu — then Israel’s deputy ambassador to the US — boasted of “victory”. Ali Khamenei, then Iran’s president, was a key proponent of Tehran’s project of backing Shia proxy militias. He encouraged a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to go to Syria, then on to Lebanon, just days after Israeli tanks had rumbled across the border. There the Iranians set up Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia militant group. The costly 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ensued.
In 1982, the US had quietly acquiesced to the Israeli invasion, then tried to stabilise the chaos by sending the Marines to Beirut. In walking into the Lebanese quagmire, America became a target of bombings for the first time in the Middle East. The US also pushed Lebanon into signing a security agreement with Israel. The move backfired, the Lebanese Army splintered and the country, eight years into a civil war, descended further into the abyss.
The echoes with today are almost too much to bear: Netanyahu openly proclaims he has dreamt of this war for 40 years and his arch-nemesis Khamenei is now dead, killed by Israeli bombs. In Lebanon, the same politicians who sank the 1983 agreement with Israel are threatening a replay. Across the country, an old debate is playing out. Some insist that if the Palestinians then, and Hizbollah today, had not launched rockets at Israel, Israel would not now be bombing Lebanon. Others claim that if it weren’t for the deterrent of such guerrilla militants, Israel would have already levelled Beirut. This argument holds little sway these days as Israeli bombs strike central Beirut daily. Meanwhile, the US is once again deploying Marines to the Middle East.
In this circular, traumatic history, two things have changed. First, Syrian president Hafez al-Assad once pulled all the strings in Lebanon as the senior partner in a joint venture with Iran. But in today’s Damascus, president Ahmed al-Sharaa is deeply opposed to Iran and keen to make sure Hizbollah militants don’t cross into his country.
In Lebanon, meanwhile, the president and government have taken several historic steps — outlawing Hizbollah’s military and security and arresting a handful of its armed members. State media have been instructed to stop referring to Hizbollah as a resistance group. Crucially, the president and prime minister have offered direct talks with Israel, breaking a decades-long taboo.
Israel and the US consider all this to be too little too late — but they are wrong. A clear indicator of the significance of these moves by the Lebanese state is the threats of violence Hizbollah has issued, accusing it of being a Vichy government.
For decades, Arab countries saw Lebanon as a convenient battleground far from their own borders where, together with the US and Europe, they often forced Beirut into compromises, first with the Palestinians, and later with Hizbollah or Tehran in the hope of containing Iranian influence within Lebanon. Lebanon has often been guilty of letting itself be used but the political moves it is making today are an attempt to reverse five decades of impotence.
While Lebanese authorities clearly have not done enough to neutralise Hizbollah since the November 2024 ceasefire, Israel did not respect it either, conducting hundreds of strikes. This deprived the Lebanese state of the diplomatic and political breathing space it needed to assert control.
The Lebanese government cannot allow local politicians to dominate the discussion about talks with Israel with their bickering about sectarian representation. It should instead present a clear strategy for the negotiations with goals and parameters to convince the nation and the international community of its resolve.
Trump should work with European allies to shore up the Lebanese president and government, despite their shortcomings, and provide urgent aid for a country in which a quarter of the population is displaced. This will help the state to protect and support its citizens, especially those in the Shia communities that have in the past felt Hizbollah was their only recourse.
Netanyahu offers perpetual war to his own citizens and the region, a logic that aligns with Iran and Hizbollah’s interests. The US must therefore ensure that Israel does not occupy or control territory in southern Lebanon, which will give a renewed raison d’être to Hizbollah for years to come. The only exit from this cycle is a Lebanese state capable of offering a credible path away from endless war.