BEIRUT — Lebanon is at a critical crossroads. External forces, led by the United States and supported by Israel, are accelerating efforts to reshape the country’s political and military landscape.
These interventions aim to deprive Beirut of independent decision-making on war and peace, weaken Hezbollah’s civilian and defense institutions, and impose a foreign-designed framework on the country’s southern border.
What is unfolding under the fancy rhetoric of “peace” is the continuation of colonial rule in modern times.
At the center of these machinations is once again the infamous former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is inseparable from the Iraq War and broader plans for Western domination in West Asia.
Blair’s anticipated visit to Beirut, officially described as part of a “regional peace effort”, represents something more calculated. He is expected to arrive as head of a special delegation that could be linked to Gaza’s so-called “peace council” initiative, which has been accused of institutionalizing modern trusteeship, according to reports.
Many in Beirut see Blair’s mission as an early attempt to lay the groundwork for a similar mechanism in Lebanon to place parts of the south under international administrative oversight.
His involvement in Washington’s postwar blueprint for the region highlights the consistent challenge of replacing resistance with dependence and sovereignty with managed compliance.
At the same time, Paul Salem, director of the Middle East Institute in Washington, has been quietly placed at the center of U.S.-backed diplomatic efforts.
President Joseph Aoun’s nomination of Salem as a potential representative of Lebanon in a future negotiating delegation with Israel has raised serious concerns among political observers.
Salem’s career reveals deep ties to Western policy circles. Born in Lebanon, he is the son of former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Elie Salem, who oversaw the May 17, 1983 agreement, the failed normalization deal with Israel that took place under the auspices of the United States.
Paul Salem himself previously served as director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut and the Lebanon Center for Policy Research, both of which received strong Western funding and whose policies aligned with U.S. regional priorities.
Observers claim that Washington directly influenced Salem’s nomination, pressuring President Aoun to include him as a negotiator who would “speak for Lebanon while serving Israel’s interests.”
Mr. Salem’s public statements echo familiar rhetoric, labeling Hezbollah as a destabilizing force, portraying U.S. policy as “supporting stability in Lebanon,” and urging greater military and economic cooperation with Western governments.
His long track record of advocating deeper integration with Western security structures reflects a mindset that internalizes colonial assumptions about governance, reform, and “acceptable sovereignty.”
In the financial field, Anton Senaoui represents another aspect of this same project. Senaoui, one of Lebanon’s most powerful bankers, has turned the country’s financial crisis into a political weapon.
Senaoui, in collaboration with Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea, has used banking networks to restrict liquidity, put pressure on government institutions and influence policy decisions.
Analysts have described it as a “financial war” against Hezbollah, targeting not only its military but also a wide range of civilian institutions such as health, education and social services.
Senaoui’s connections to the Western financial system and Israeli-aligned networks give him influence far beyond the Beirut economy.
His efforts parallel those of international think tanks that advocate the gradual dismantling of Hezbollah’s infrastructure as a precondition for Western aid.
Furthermore, Senaoui’s ability to inform financial and media discourse has given him a key role in shaping election outcomes, reinforcing a system in which economic survival depends on political obedience to US and Israeli plans.
Together, Blair, Salem, and Senaoui demonstrate the convergence of political, intellectual, and financial instruments deployed to reaffirm Western control of Lebanon.
Although each operates within different diplomatic, ideological, and economic spheres, they pursue the same objectives: neutralize resistance, redefine sovereignty, and subordinate Lebanon’s independence to external monitoring “mechanisms.”