Is Lebanon Close to Peace or Will It Pass It By?

MTV Lebanon

2 days ago

'CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT'S TIME FOR PEACE!'
That was US President Donald Trump's declaration during the Iran-Israel confrontation, following Iran's strike on the largest US base in the region, in Qatar. For those watching closely, it wasn't just a hopeful sentiment, it was a political signal.
Soon after, US envoy Tom Barrack, made a pointed visit to Lebanon, meeting key figures amid renewed momentum around the Abraham Accords, the normalization framework that continues to reshape the Middle East. His presence raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles, and for good reason. As US advisor Witkoff recently confirmed, 'One of the President's key objectives is that the Abraham Accords be expanded and more countries come into it, and we are working on that.'
The message is clear: Washington wants more Arab states on board. But how close is Lebanon to joining this evolving regional order?
The question is both delicate and premature. Normalization with Israel remains one of the most politically and emotionally sensitive issues in Lebanon, a country still shaped by its history of war, occupation, and its geographic 'intimacy' with the Israeli border. While several Gulf countries have moved to normalize from afar, Lebanon doesn't have that luxury. Its situation is defined by unresolved disputes and proximity.
In a n interview with political analyst Ibrahim Rihan, speaking exclusively to MTV's website, it's evident that Lebanon is not on the verge of a dramatic shift. Rihan explained that Israel and the United States have launched deliberate media and diplomatic campaigns to present peace with Israel as a natural step forward, especially since the October 7 attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made multiple references to a "New Middle East" in public speeches, echoing a narrative that normalization is both achievable and desirable.
According to Rihan, these efforts are designed to influence regional public opinion and normalize the concept of peace with Israel. In many places, the taboo has already been broken, maybe not entirely, but among significant and influential segments of society. That shift is intentional.
But Lebanon, he explains, remains anchored in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for land in exchange for peace and a two-state solution. That initiative, born at the Beirut Summit, still represents the foundation of Lebanon's stance. And there are complications: disputed land borders, the issue of prisoners, Israel's violations, and the unresolved status of the Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon claims, but also requires Syrian cooperation to settle definitively.
Rihan emphasizes that Lebanon would only move forward with negotiations under full Arab sponsorship and with comprehensive US guarantees, especially on sovereignty and border security.
Lebanon's place in the Abraham Accords, he notes, would almost certainly come last. Not just because of political resistance, but because of the country's frontline geography. "Lebanon has more outstanding issues with Israel than any other Arab state," Rihan says, 'from land to airspace, to war memory…'
But there's a wildcard: Syria. Historically, Lebanon has never pursued or signed a peace agreement with Israel without Syria taking the lead. If Syria were to normalize relations Lebanon would find itself geopolitically cornered by Israel from the south and Syria from the north and west. That, Rihan argues, could compel Lebanon to reckon with a new political and geographic reality.
For now, though, Lebanon stands at a crossroads, cautious and waiting. Peace may be on someone else's timetable, but for Beirut, it will never be automatic.