As soon as press leaks emerged suggesting that the Lebanese file was being taken away from US envoy Tom Barrack and handed back to former envoy Morgan Ortagus, a certain optimism resurfaced among the Lebanese. This might be explained by the fact that Ortagus is seen as more than just a US envoy; she has indeed become some kind of celebrity in Lebanese social circles.
There is no doubt that this raises many questions, particularly given Ortagus’ initial sidelining, followed by Barrack’s removal and her reinstatement. The shifting roles and decisions surrounding this file have sparked widespread surprise.
Truth is, Lebanon’s case is far from secondary in Washington’s halls of power. It is part of a broader, integrated regional strategy. However, reports spoke of tensions between Morgan Ortagus and Steve Witkoff, US envoy to the Middle East, especially over her failure to consult him on several key matters. Though the issue was eventually resolved amicably, Tom Barrack failed to make any breakthrough. In fact, his involvement arguably worsened the situation.
In fact, Barrack failed to grasp the region’s dynamics and Lebanon’s intricate sensitivities, despite a personal background that should have offered more insight. His agenda reflected US policy, but his approach missed the mark.
His first misstep was attempting to separate Hezbollah’s political and military wings; an overly simplistic stance, given Washington’s cautious approach to the issue. He then made matters worse by sparking controversy over his remarks about Bilad al-Sham and Lebanon “returning” to it (a notion far removed from today’s regional discourse).
Nonetheless, Ortagus’ return raises eyebrows. She belongs to a camp that advocates for decisive action, demanding clarity and firm stance, unlike the current climate. Her reappointment signals a potential escalation, a warning that the status quo can no longer stand. If the Lebanese state cannot assert its sovereignty in critical matters, the international community may back Israel in resolving the issue on its own terms.
So, the question for Lebanon is the following: Will it prove its capacity of asserting its authority on existential matters; or will it leave the door open for Israel, under Netanyahu’s hardline doctrine, to impose its own solution?
Comments