Lebanon risks being taken over by regional powers unless Beirut acts to address Hezbollah’s weapons stockpiles, US special envoy Tom Barrack warned on Friday.
Mr Barrack, who is the special envoy for Syria and US ambassador to Turkey, told The National in an exclusive interview that Lebanon needs to resolve the issue or else it could face an existential threat.
“I honestly think that they are going to say ‘the world will pass us by’. Why? You have Israel on one side, you have Iran on the other, and now you have Syria manifesting itself so quickly that if Lebanon doesn’t move, it’s going to be Bilad Al Sham again,” he said, using the historical name for the Syria region.
“Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort. So we need to move. And I know how frustrated the Lebanese people are. It frustrates me.”
Mr Barrack said the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are ready to help if Lebanon takes the lead.
On Saturday, Mr Barrack posted on social media that his comments were intended to praise “Syria’s impressive strides’’ rather than being a “threat to Lebanon”.
“I can assure that Syria’s leaders only want co-existence and mutual prosperity with Lebanon, and the United States is committed to supporting that relationship between two equal and sovereign neighbours enjoying peace and prosperity,” he said on X.
Last month, Mr Barrack presented Lebanese officials with a proposal to disarm Hezbollah and implement economic reforms, to help lift the country out of its six-year financial crisis – one of the worst in modern history.
The US proposal ties reconstruction aid and a halt to Israeli army operations to Hezbollah’s full disarmament across the country.
Since a US-brokered ceasefire began in November, the Iran-backed group has withdrawn most of its troops from the Israeli border. Israel insists it must be disarmed nationwide.
In response to the proposal, Lebanese authorities submitted a seven-page document calling for a full Israeli withdrawal from disputed territory, including Shebaa Farms, and reaffirming state control over all weapons while pledging to dismantle Hezbollah’s arms in south Lebanon.
The document stopped short of agreeing to disarm Hezbollah nationwide.
“I thought it was responsive, very responsive,” Mr Barrack said, while acknowledging that sticking points remain.
“There are issues that we have to arm wrestle with each other over to come to a final conclusion. Remember, we have an agreement … it was a great agreement. The problem is, nobody followed it."
He stressed the urgency for Lebanon to act.
When asked if Hezbollah agreeing to lay down its arms and become a purely political party would prompt President Donald Trump's administration to remove the group from the US foreign terrorist list, as it did with Hayat Tahrir Al Sham in Syria, Mr Barrack declined to elaborate.
“I’m not running from the answer, but I can’t answer it,” he told journalists in New York earlier on Friday.
Asked why Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun has not publicly committed to a disarmament timetable, Mr Barrack said: “He doesn’t want to start a civil war.”
The Lebanese armed forces are widely viewed as the “best, neutral, reliable mediator” in the current crisis but face severe funding shortages due to Lebanon’s economic collapse, Mr Barrack said.
He noted that despite the Lebanese army’s credibility, it operates “on a shoestring budget”, forcing UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, Unifil, to fill the gap with 10,000 troops.
“God bless the United Nations and the Unifil troops, but they don’t really have command and control over harsh things,” Mr Barrack said.
Mr Barrack acknowledged that any attempt to fully disarm Hezbollah could be volatile and risk sparking a civil war.
He suggested a possible path could involve Hezbollah agreeing to voluntarily disarm its heavy weapons, including rockets and drones, handing them over to monitored depots under a “mechanism” involving the US, France, Israel and the Lebanese army.
Mr Barrack said the Lebanese army lacks the resources and manpower to take on such a mission.
“We don’t have the soldiers on the ground for the LAF to be able to do that yet, because they don’t have the money. They’re using equipment that’s 60 years old,” he said.
As a result, Hezbollah argues it cannot rely on the Lebanese army for protection, he added.
“Hezbollah is looking at it saying, ‘We can’t rely on the LAF. We have to rely on ourselves because Israel is bombing us every day, and they’re still occupying our land,’” he said, referring to disputed border areas known as the “five points".
Mr Barrack said addressing these security concerns, while preventing escalation into conflict, would require international support to strengthen Lebanon’s army and a mechanism to manage heavy weapons, with buy-in from all sides.
He said the US has approached its Gulf partners to seek funding for the Lebanese armed forces but has faced resistance.
“The US is going to our valued Gulf partners and saying, ‘We want money to go to the LAF,’” he said. “Why do the Gulf partners not want to do that? Because they’ve given so much money to Lebanon in the past that’s gone to the corrupt leaders. So they’re saying, ‘Yeah, we’re done.’”
He noted that Gulf states are reluctant to invest further without assurances that funds will bypass Lebanon’s entrenched political elite and corruption.
“This is the big dilemma,” Mr Barrack said, adding that without sustained support for the Lebanese army, it will remain under-resourced, complicating any efforts to stabilise the country and reduce Hezbollah’s hold.
“We need to help bolster the LAF,” Mr Barrack said. “We can do it hand-in-hand with the Gulf countries, hand-in-hand with Unifil, as we redefine what their role is on a continued basis.”
