Ortagus' departure sparks a flashback to the 90s: Will Lebanon's file be handed to Syria again?

Report by Toni Mrad, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi

Uncertainty surrounds the potential departure of Morgan Ortagus from her current role, with no clear successor identified so far. 

Despite circulating local reports suggesting a farewell visit to Beirut, sources say her team has made no official request for meetings with Lebanese officials.

Whether Ortagus remains in office or steps down, her future is being watched closely against the backdrop of rapidly evolving dynamics in Syria, which is increasingly re-engaging with the international community, including Gulf states. 

In contrast, Lebanon's slow progress in fulfilling reform commitments and rebuilding trust with those same countries has raised concern in Washington.

Observers in the U.S. fear a potential repeat of history, recalling a period when Lebanon, failing to assert its weight on the diplomatic stage, was effectively sidelined and handed over to Syrian influence.

Those fears are heightened by Lebanon's continued paralysis over the issue of Hezbollah's weapons and unconfirmed reports suggesting that Tom Barrack, the U.S. special envoy for Syria, may hold talks in Lebanon. 

Will the Lebanese file once again be folded into Syria's—reminiscent of the Syrian tutelage that lasted from 1976 to 2005?

During the peak of that era, particularly in the 1990s, Syria exercised complete control over Lebanon's state institutions, from selecting presidents and overseeing security services to silencing political and media opposition and even shaping Lebanon's economic direction. In practice, Syria held ultimate authority over Lebanese affairs.

Official Lebanese sources told LBCI they are aware of such speculation but firmly reject the notion of any new form of foreign tutelage. 

"The era of external guardianship is over," one source said, insisting that the government remains committed to a full path of reforms to preserve Lebanon's sovereignty.

However, in Washington and Riyadh, that speech has grown familiar—too familiar. It is no longer seen as a credible safeguard against renewed foreign influence.