How Can Lebanon Achieve Full Sovereignty to Join Abraham Accords?

The question of Lebanon’s potential participation in the Abraham Accords has become increasingly urgent as the Trump administration explores opportunities to expand the Middle East peace framework. However, Lebanon faces a unique challenge that distinguishes it from other potential participants: the country operates under what foreign policy experts describe as “partial sovereignty” due to Hezbollah’s continued military presence throughout significant portions of Lebanese territory.

This fundamental sovereignty challenge creates a complex diplomatic puzzle that requires more than traditional negotiation approaches. When most countries consider international agreements, their governments can speak with unified authority about national policy and implementation. Lebanon’s situation represents a stark departure from this norm, where an Iranian-backed militia maintains independent military capabilities and decision-making power that can override official government positions.

Dr. Walid Phares, a former foreign policy advisor to President Trump and current senior advisor to the American Mideast Coalition for Democracy (AMCD), explains the core challenge with particular clarity. “Lebanon is only partially free and sovereign because it is partially occupied by a Khomeinist militia force,” he states. This assessment helps illuminate why Lebanon’s potential inclusion in the Abraham Accords represents far more than a diplomatic formality between friendly governments.

The Abraham Accords, established during President Trump’s first term, fundamentally altered Middle Eastern diplomacy by demonstrating that Arab nations could normalize relations with Israel without first resolving the Palestinian question. The success of these agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan created momentum for further expansion, with Lebanon representing both significant opportunity and substantial challenge for the framework’s continued growth.

Understanding Lebanon’s sovereignty deficit requires examining the practical implications of Hezbollah’s military presence. Unlike traditional political parties that compete for influence through elections and legislative processes, Hezbollah maintains an independent military apparatus that operates parallel to Lebanon’s official armed forces. This creates what analysts describe as a “state within a state” dynamic, where crucial decisions about war and peace may be made by non-governmental actors who answer to foreign patrons rather than Lebanese voters.

The historical context of this challenge traces back to UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, which specifically called for the disarmament of all militias operating in Lebanon. Nearly two decades later, the resolution remains largely unimplemented, with Hezbollah continuing to expand its military capabilities despite international pressure. This persistent non-compliance with Security Council resolutions represents one of the most significant obstacles to Lebanon’s integration into regional peace frameworks.

AMCD co-chair Tom Harb offers insight into the practical coordination problems that have prevented progress on militia disarmament. “Even though Israel did Lebanon a tremendous service by eliminating Hezbollah’s leadership, that action did not dislodge the organization,” he observes. “It seems that the US expects the Lebanese Armed Forces to deal with Hezbollah, but the LAF keeps waiting for the UN peacekeepers, the Israelis, or maybe even the US to come in and clear out Hezbollah for them.”

This assessment reveals a fundamental stalemate where each potential actor in the disarmament process appears to be waiting for someone else to take the initiative. The Lebanese Armed Forces, despite receiving substantial US military assistance, have demonstrated reluctance to confront Hezbollah directly, recognizing that such action could precipitate internal conflict that would devastate the country’s already fragile infrastructure and economy.

The diplomatic dimensions of this challenge reflect years of sustained international pressure that has yet to produce meaningful results. Dr. Phares provides detailed insight into these efforts, explaining that “American diplomats and envoys have repeatedly pressed Lebanon’s President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament to implement a phased plan to disarm Hezbollah. I personally presented such a plan during the first Trump administration, and again in 2022 to members of Congress. Most recently, Deputy Envoy Morgan Ortagus and Ambassador Tom Barrack have urged the Lebanese government to begin the process.”

The persistence of these diplomatic efforts over multiple years demonstrates both the priority that US administrations have placed on resolving Lebanon’s sovereignty challenges and the difficulty of translating diplomatic pressure into concrete action. The pattern that emerges suggests that Lebanese officials have consistently responded to international pressure with diplomatic maneuvering rather than decisive implementation, reflecting what Dr. Phares characterizes as a fundamental trust deficit.

“Lebanese officials continue to maneuver diplomatically, waiting to follow Washington’s lead rather than proceed proactively,” he explains. “They fear Hezbollah more than they trust U.S. support at this time.” This observation illuminates a crucial psychological and political dynamic that shapes Lebanese decision-making, where government officials who might personally support disarming Hezbollah must contend with the reality that they continue operating in a country where the organization maintains significant military capabilities and has demonstrated willingness to use violence against political opponents.

The economic dimensions of Lebanon’s sovereignty challenge cannot be separated from the political and security questions surrounding Hezbollah’s presence. Lebanon has experienced one of the most severe economic crises in its modern history, with currency devaluation, banking sector collapse, and widespread poverty affecting all segments of society. These conditions have created additional leverage for armed groups like Hezbollah, which can provide services and economic support that the official government cannot match due to fiscal constraints.

Understanding this dynamic helps explain why addressing Lebanon’s sovereignty challenges requires comprehensive approaches that go beyond traditional security measures. The collapse of state institutions and services has created vulnerabilities that non-state actors can exploit, making the restoration of government effectiveness a crucial component of any successful disarmament strategy.

Recent reports indicate that the current Trump administration is actively considering new approaches to these longstanding challenges. US envoy Tom Barrack has reportedly presented Lebanese officials with a comprehensive proposal that aims to disarm Hezbollah while implementing economic reforms to address Lebanon’s ongoing financial crisis. This dual approach recognizes that sustainable solutions to Lebanon’s political challenges must address both security concerns and the economic conditions that have contributed to state weakness.

The American Mideast Coalition for Democracy has responded to these developments by recommending that the Trump administration establish a special task force on Lebanon to “re-evaluate and develop an alternative U.S. policy.” The organization argues that such a task force should reflect “today’s realities—particularly the collapse of Iran’s nuclear program—and should be grounded in practical options that neither rely on the Lebanese government’s initiative nor assume Hezbollah will voluntarily disarm.”

This recommendation reflects recognition that traditional diplomatic approaches, which assume that legitimate governments can implement policies throughout their territory, may be inadequate for addressing Lebanon’s unique circumstances. The reference to Iran’s nuclear program collapse suggests that changing regional dynamics may create new opportunities for addressing Iranian proxy activities in Lebanon, though the specific mechanisms for capitalizing on these opportunities remain to be developed.

AMCD co-chair John Hajjar emphasizes the broader regional implications of successfully resolving Lebanon’s sovereignty challenges. “Everyone wants to see Lebanon succeed as a free country and even to join the Abraham Accords,” he states. “But before that can happen, Hezbollah must be completely dissolved so that the Lebanese government can claim full sovereignty over its rightful territory and join the ranks of peace-loving, democratic nations.”

This perspective reflects understanding that Lebanon’s potential participation in the Abraham Accords represents more than bilateral normalization with Israel. It would signify Lebanon’s integration into a broader regional framework that emphasizes economic cooperation, security coordination, and democratic governance. The Abraham Accords have already demonstrated their potential to generate substantial economic benefits for participating nations, with trade relationships and investment flows increasing significantly among member countries.

The path toward achieving full Lebanese sovereignty appears to require multiple coordinated efforts that address different aspects of the country’s current challenges. Security measures alone have proven insufficient, as demonstrated by the limited impact of previous military actions against Hezbollah leadership. Economic incentives and support may be necessary to create alternatives to the services and opportunities that Hezbollah currently provides to its constituencies.

International coordination also appears crucial for any successful approach to Lebanese sovereignty restoration. The involvement of regional partners, particularly those who have already joined the Abraham Accords, could provide both political support and practical assistance for Lebanon’s integration into regional peace frameworks. These partners have demonstrated that normalization with Israel can coexist with maintaining strong relationships with other regional actors, potentially providing Lebanon with models for balancing different diplomatic relationships.

Recent analysis suggests that the regional balance of power may be shifting in ways that could create new opportunities for addressing Lebanon’s sovereignty challenges. Reports indicate that disarming Hezbollah, once considered unthinkable, could finally be within reach as the United States applies pressure to both Lebanon and Iran. These developments suggest that the question of Lebanese sovereignty may be entering a new phase where previously impossible solutions become potentially feasible.

The broader regional context includes significant developments in Abraham Accords expansion, with reports indicating that the Trump administration is initiating efforts to include Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia in the framework. This suggests that Lebanon’s potential participation is part of a comprehensive regional strategy rather than an isolated diplomatic initiative.

However, the practical steps necessary to transform Lebanon’s current situation into one where meaningful Abraham Accords participation becomes possible remain complex and challenging. The experience of other accord participants suggests that successful integration requires not only government-level agreements but also the development of economic, cultural, and security relationships that can withstand political changes and regional tensions.

For Lebanon, achieving this level of integration would require not only the resolution of Hezbollah’s military presence but also the development of state institutions capable of maintaining security and implementing international agreements. This represents a substantial nation-building challenge that extends far beyond traditional diplomatic negotiations and requires sustained international support and domestic political will.

The American Mideast Coalition for Democracy’s call for a special task force reflects recognition that addressing Lebanon’s challenges requires sustained, coordinated efforts that can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining focus on the fundamental goal of restoring Lebanese sovereignty. The success of such efforts would have implications that extend far beyond Lebanon’s borders, potentially demonstrating that even the most entrenched regional conflicts can be resolved through sustained diplomatic engagement combined with practical policy innovations.

For Lebanese citizens who have endured decades of political instability and economic hardship, the prospect of joining the Abraham Accords represents not just diplomatic recognition but the possibility of accessing the economic opportunities and security benefits that have already transformed other participating nations. Recent analysis suggests that Lebanon could indeed make peace with Israel and join the Abraham Accords now that Hezbollah has been significantly weakened.

The challenge now lies in translating these aspirations into concrete policies that can navigate the complex realities of Lebanese politics while building the international support necessary for sustainable solutions. The Trump administration’s consideration of new approaches suggests recognition that traditional diplomatic methods may be insufficient, though the ultimate success of any new strategy will depend on its ability to address the fundamental questions of sovereignty and security that have defined Lebanon’s regional relationships for generations.

The question of how Lebanon can achieve full sovereignty to join the Abraham Accords ultimately requires addressing multiple interconnected challenges simultaneously: dismantling parallel military structures, rebuilding state institutions, addressing economic vulnerabilities, and creating regional security arrangements that can guarantee Lebanese independence from external interference. The complexity of these challenges explains why previous efforts have struggled to achieve lasting results, but also suggests that comprehensive approaches addressing all dimensions of the problem may offer greater potential for success than narrow diplomatic initiatives alone.

About The Author