As the year comes to an end, the Middle East finds itself filled with a mix of astonishment, hope and cautious reflection on the surprising events that have reshaped its dynamics.
Lebanon provided the first unexpected development after Israel severely degraded Hezbollah’s military capabilities, but Syria also remains cloaked in uncertainty.
It is too soon to shed any apprehension there is about the future of Syria, which continues to cast a long shadow, with repercussions not only for itself but also for Lebanon, the Arab world and the wider region.
There is undeniable joy in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar Al Assad’s government. Yet while the emergence of a “new Syria” sparks optimism, caution is prudent, particularly in this transitional phase.
Optimism for Lebanon meanwhile is justified, but only if all parties involved adhere to the ceasefire agreement between Beirut and Israel. Further, Lebanese leaders must adopt a fresh, earnest approach to state-building – one grounded in integrity and free from the corruption and political bargaining that have historically plagued the country and contributed to its decline.
Undeniably, developments in Syria exert a significant influence on Lebanon’s stability. Any descent into chaos in Syria could pose a serious threat to Lebanon’s path towards regeneration.
However, Lebanon could be immunised against any spillover – provided that violations of the ceasefire agreement by both Israel and Hezbollah are halted. Additionally, progress must be made by the guarantor countries to finalise border demarcations between the two countries, following the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territories.
Indeed, the implementation mechanism for UN Security Council Resolution 1701 offers Lebanon a historic opportunity to assert the authority of the state across its entire territory and to ensure that all armaments are exclusively under state control.
Hezbollah is aware of this reality and understands that Israel’s military machine stands ready to act should it violate the terms of the ceasefire agreement. Further, Hezbollah’s leadership is adept at interpreting the regional landscape and recognises that the setbacks faced by both itself and Iran in Syria are not mere coincidences but pivotal events with profound implications.
The characteristics and messages of Syria’s new administration signal a willingness to embark on a fresh chapter with Lebanon – one that moves away from the patterns of Syrian tutelage, suppression of Lebanese autonomy and the imposition of “interdependence of tracks” in their dealings with Israel.
This interdependence had long prevented either nation from pursuing an independent peace agreement, even if one achieved the end of occupation. The former Syrian government’s infringement on Lebanese sovereignty lies at the heart of its oppressive legacy.
The new Syrian leadership has hinted at a commitment to non-interference in Lebanese affairs. By extension, this suggests a readiness to accept the demarcation of Lebanese-Israeli borders, potentially paving the way for peace agreements once occupation ends.
A critical test for this new era in Syrian-Lebanese relations will be Syria’s response to the annual question presented by the UN Secretary General: are the Shebaa Farms Syrian or Lebanese?
If deemed Syrian, the area would remain under the jurisdiction of the UN Disengagement Observer Force until Syria and Israel reach a bilateral peace agreement. If, however, the new government in Damascus acknowledges the Shebaa Farms as Lebanese, negotiations would shift to Lebanon and Israel, requiring the dismantling of Undof there and transferring the territory to Lebanon.
Yet such a scenario remains improbable due to the complexity of the process and the inherent risks involved in dismantling the disengagement force. The new Syrian administration’s approach to this issue will be a defining factor in shaping regional dynamics and its relationship with Lebanon.
The path to neutralising the Shebaa Farms issue can be reached through a definitive Syrian clarification of the matter, and this in turn serves as a litmus test for the new Syrian administration’s sincerity in fostering a transformative relationship with Lebanon. Demonstrating such sincerity is crucial in affirming its new intentions in relation to its neighbour.
Normalising relations with Lebanon would not only benefit Lebanon but also bolster Syria, as it navigates a host of challenges in its efforts to reinvent itself.
Syria, however, is in a precarious position, aptly described by a friend well-versed in international affairs as “walking on thin ice”. This fragility stems from internal vertical divisions associated with dismantling the old government and horizontal divisions among various factions.
The initial optimism and rush to congratulations that marked the opening of a new chapter with post-Assad Syria are quickly giving way to the harsh realities of its political landscape. Rumblings of instability have surfaced even ahead of the elections likely to be held in March.
With significant influence in Syria today, Turkey harbours concerns about US support for the Kurdish-majority regions in the country, despite apparent backing from US president-elect Donald Trump for Ankara’s decisions regarding Syria.
Were the US to withdraw its personnel and support for these Kurdish-held areas, there is a real risk of the forces that control them turning to radicalism and waging retaliatory actions against both Turkish and American interests.
The incoming Trump administration may yet recognise the importance of distinguishing between Kurdish factions that Turkey labels as terrorist and other Kurdish-led groups, such as the Syrian Democratic Forces, which have been US partners in Syria. However, failing to act with such nuance risks not only retaliation against Turkey but also the destabilisation of broader efforts to secure stability in Syria.
Indeed, Syria remains at the centre of uncertainty and peril. Reports of extremist groups preparing to transform it into a hub for a more sophisticated iteration of ISIS must not be dismissed. Should international powers, especially the US, neglect these warnings, they could inadvertently turn Syria’s hard-won progress into a catastrophe.
Supporting the new Syria requires prioritising its emergence as a modern, secular and inclusive state, unified under a cohesive national identity. It entails preventing the country from becoming ensnared by troubles in the Kurdish-majority areas, while fostering normalised relations between Syria and Lebanon as two sovereign states. For its part, Israel must abandon its policies of aggression towards Syrian sovereignty, committing instead to ending its occupation of its territories.
The justified joy of this transitional moment must be accompanied by a shared vision for development in both Lebanon and Syria – two nations with ancient roots and intertwined destinies. For now, both are treading forward on very thin ice.
