Anthony Naim

The relations between the United States and Lebanon represent a complex model in the history of American foreign policy, where early cultural and educational considerations intertwined with later geopolitical and security calculations. This overlap produced a fluctuating path, sometimes marked by direct and intensive American engagement, and at other times by calculated withdrawal or strategic repositioning, depending on changing regional and international priorities.

Lebanon was never seen in the American perspective as a fixed entity in terms of definition or role. At certain periods, it was viewed as a promising democratic model and a financial and cultural hub in the Middle East, while at other times it was considered a crossroads of regional crises and a source of security risks, particularly during the Cold War and in the context of the conflict with Iran and the repercussions of Syrian influence.

American presence in Lebanon began in the nineteenth century with a cultural and educational character, different from the traditional European colonial model. The early involvement was linked to Protestant missions that gradually focused on education as a long-term tool of influence. The establishment of leading academic institutions such as the American University of Beirut in 1866 and the Lebanese American University in 1835 contributed to the formation of political and intellectual elites who played a central role in the Arab renaissance and in shaping the concepts of the modern state and liberal thought. This phase can be seen as an early example of using soft power to build sustainable influence through knowledge and culture.

With Lebanon’s independence in 1943 and the end of the French mandate, relations entered a more formal and clear phase. Washington recognized Lebanon’s independence in 1944 and later upgraded its diplomatic representation to an embassy in 1952, signaling the growing importance of Beirut in American calculations. During this period, Lebanon sought to diversify its international partnerships and balance French influence, while the United States saw Lebanon as a relatively democratic space in which it could invest within an unstable regional context.

The convergence reached its peak in the 1950s, amid the escalation of the Cold War and the rise of Arab nationalism. Lebanon adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957, which allowed American support for countries threatened by communist influence. When the 1958 crisis erupted, American forces intervened militarily in Beirut at the request of the Lebanese president at the time. Despite the military nature of the action, the objective was primarily political, culminating in an internal settlement and the election of a new president, which reinforced Lebanon’s position as a strategic ally during that period.

However, this trajectory did not last. With the relocation of Palestinian guerrilla activity to Lebanon following the events of 1970 in Jordan, Lebanon’s internal balances began to shake. At the same time, Washington was preoccupied with the Vietnam War and opening relations with China, so Lebanon did not receive priority in American strategy. When the civil war broke out in 1975, relations entered a period of severe tension and instability. This tension intensified after the assassination of the American ambassador in 1976 and reached its peak with the 1983 bombings targeting the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of American forces from Lebanon in 1984.

After the Taif Agreement in 1990, relations experienced a period of relative stagnation. Washington effectively accepted Syria’s dominant role in Lebanon as part of broader regional arrangements, particularly in the context of the Arab-Israeli peace process. During this period, the American role was limited to supporting reconstruction efforts without directly challenging Syrian influence, reflecting an approach to managing the Lebanese file in a non-confrontational manner.

In contrast, the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005 marked a pivotal turning point that brought Lebanon back to the forefront of international attention. The United States supported the popular movement calling for the end of Syrian presence and subsequently focused on strengthening state institutions, especially the Lebanese army, as a pillar of stability. Yet this trajectory remained fragile due to the continued influence of armed groups operating outside state control.

With the outbreak of the economic crisis in 2019, relations entered a new phase characterized by intensified pressure tools, particularly financial sanctions, anti-corruption measures, and efforts to disrupt illicit networks. Washington also played a central role in achieving the maritime border demarcation agreement in 2022, creating potential economic opportunities for Lebanon and demonstrating the continued American ability to mediate in complex environments.

Currently, the American approach reflects a clear duality: humanitarian and security support on one hand, and political pressure to address the issue of illegal weapons and strengthen state sovereignty on the other. The Lebanese file is also linked to the broader regional context, especially amid tensions with Iran.

Despite changes in U.S. administrations, three constants can be observed in policy toward Lebanon: prioritizing Israel’s security, investing in the liberal model and its educational institutions, and supporting the Lebanese army as a guarantor of stability. Between Lebanon’s need for external support and America’s need for a balanced foothold in the eastern Mediterranean, the relationship remains based on a delicate equation of mutual interests and structural contradictions.

In conclusion, the tools and levels of American engagement may change, but historical experience indicates that Lebanon, due to its geographical location and political structure, will remain present in American calculations, whether through direct involvement or strategic repositioning.