Lebanon left waiting amid shifting regional dynamics: Has Beirut fallen off the US priority list?

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

The easing of U.S. sanctions on Syria has accelerated under a set of conditions, chief among them Damascus agreeing to join the Abraham Accords. There is also a growing discussion of other countries, including Lebanon, potentially joining the U.S.-backed initiative.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, announced even before Trump’s Gulf tour that countries such as Syria and Lebanon could soon join the Abraham Accords.

But where does Lebanon stand on all of this, especially given that U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus publicly urged the country to learn from Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who appears to have accepted Washington’s most important condition: joining the Abraham Accords.

Lebanon maintains that the United States has not officially raised the issue of the Abraham Accords directly with the Lebanese government. 

It also insists that the most it would be willing to accept is a return to the 1949 Armistice Agreement and the full restoration of Lebanon’s land and maritime border rights from Israel. 

Most importantly, Lebanon would be willing to consider entering peace negotiations only after these conditions are met.

This is Lebanon’s official stance—but what if Israel and the United States reject it?

Lebanon remains trapped in a cycle of political deadlock, with ongoing internal disputes compounding a deepening economic crisis and raising the risk of further instability. 

In contrast, much of the Middle East, including Syria, is moving toward greater stability and economic recovery.

The intended path forward is clear: a move toward peace, meaning an end to all forms of conflict. Lebanese officials are aware of this, but none dare admit they have been told as much.