In 2018, Henry Kissinger observed that Donald Trump was one of those historical characters who “appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences”. The same could be said about last year’s October 7 attacks, the full impact of which we are only now beginning to comprehend.
Before that act of appalling barbarism, the world was strangely optimistic about the future of the Middle East — despite the catastrophic scale of human suffering, millenarian fanaticism and economic collapse that was already evident across the region. The root of the hopefulness could be found in the Abraham Accords, that potentially transformative set of Trump initiatives, the aim of which was — somewhat euphemistically — to “normalise” relations between Israel and some of its Arab enemies. Last September, the great glittering prize of Middle East peace seemed to be in touching distance: Saudi rapprochement with Israel.
The radical idea at the heart of Trump’s plan was that regional peace did not need to wait for “the Palestinian question” to be solved. Instead, that could be put to one side while other grand strategic moves played out. As Mohammed bin Salman “modernised” Saudi with his combination of political repression and social liberalisation, the two great anti-Iranian powers in the region could finally be brought together. A similar assessment was made about Lebanon, a country without a functioning state or economy and at the mercy of Iran’s colonial army, Hezbollah. This, also, was a situation that was thought to be containable — even as Iran exploited the anarchic chaos of Iraq and Syria to supply its proxy with enough weapons to devastate Israel.
The central conceit of the Abraham Accords was that, irrespective of Hamas, Hezbollah and the occupation of the West Bank, once the Israel-Saudi axis was formed, Iran could be pushed back and contained without direct American involvement. But, then, the depth of Hamas’s murderous brutality on 7 October shattered that assumption, leaving not only a traumatised and vulnerable Israel, but also a traumatised and vulnerable Western order forced to confront the stark realities of the Middle East.
Today, Lebanon is a dead state, eaten alive by Hezbollah’s parasitic power. The scale of the catastrophe in the country is hard to comprehend, much of it caused by the disruptive nature of Syria’s civil war. Since its neighbour’s descent into anarchic hell, some 1.5 million Syrians have sought refuge in Lebanon — a tiny country with a population of just 5 million. But, more fundamentally, with Hezbollah fighting to protect Bashar al Assad, the opposing countries — led by Saudi Arabia — began withdrawing funds from Lebanese banks. This sparked a financial crisis that left Lebanon with no money for fuel.
By spring 2020, the country had defaulted on its debts, sending it into a downward spiral which the World Bank in 2021 described as among “the top 10, possibly top three, most severe crises globally since the mid-nineteenth century”. Lebanon’s GDP plummeted by around a third, with poverty doubling from 42% to 82% in two years. At the same time, the country’s capital, Beirut, was hit by an extraordinary explosion at its port, leaving more than 300,000 homeless. By 2023 the IMF described the situation as “very dangerous” and the US was warning that the collapse of the Lebanese state was “a real possibility”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy is it up to Britain or France to do anything? If two groups of savages want to have a fight in the Middle East why should Britain or France have to choose a side or deal with the fallout of refugees?
Leave the quagmire alone, it’s none of our interest which animals emerge victorious, they’re all as bad as each other
“anti refugee” riots? An interesting choice of words. I understood that the last true refugees from France were Protestants after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes…
And weren’t the riots really an expression of general anger, with mass immigration being a major strand in that anger?
As for the Middle East, the West’s interventions are the major cause of the trouble all the way back to the (desired) collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But the most recent follies were the Iraq War and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government (previously fawned upon until he wouldn’t do as he was told…)
What a nasty piece of propaganda for ethnic cleansing. Israel has been taken to the ICJ for that crime. You might not like that fact in your little bubble. Most of the world condemns Israel. It is undeniable. Now you propose the same final solution for Lebanon!
The lack of objectivity in this article doesn’t follow the pattern of why I decided to subscribe to this platform. I had been impressed by the depth and scope of views from contributors (a surprise considering the genealogical tree of Unherd links itself to GB news). However, this blatant pro Israeli analysis of the situation with an overwhelming bias and subjectivity is quite disappointing. The situation in the middle east is not independent of Israel’s creation and maintenance; not forgetting their continuous human rights violations. Lebanon’s ‘failed state’ label has a lot to do with how the french left it when it had enough of governing it. Who thought creating a governance platform divided across sectarian lines wasna good idea??
Overall very disappointed and expect better from long format journalism
Yes, the regime that started bombing Israel Oct. 8 is the victim here. Israel should suck it up and live with the daily bombings. Of course – I’m not being sarcastic now – the real victims are the innocent civilians living in states dominated by terrorist organizations. We should all count our blessings being born in stable, democractic nations.
Lebanon has been independent from the French since 1943 (they had a mandate to govern following the demise of the occupying Ottoman Empire) and were doing quite nicely until the Islamists took over and turned the place into a hell hole.
The French left Lebanon a while ago, and for many years it went very well. Beirut was a civilised city with a good standard of living. Then the palestinians that Jordan didn’t want arrived. You are right that things might have worked out differently had Lebanon been a smaller state, organised around a Christian majority, and the French can maybe shoulder some blame for that, but if that was indeed the problem, ie that attempting to share power and territory with Moslems was doomed from the start, then one can’t really complain about Israel being adamant in refusing to do so.
I thought it was a simple but accurate appraisal of the situation. Where do you think the bias lies?