'Integration or Imposition'? Arab Silence on US Plans for Syria and Lebanon
Amjad Abdi – Editorial Secretary of Borna news agency: Recent movements by Thomas Barrack, the US Special Representative for Syria and Lebanon, combined with warnings and analyses from Abdul Bari Atwan, have once again placed a fundamental question on the agenda of public opinion and political elites in the region. Is what is being promoted today as the "rapprochement of Damascus and Beirut" merely a temporary, tactical security adjustment, or does it hold the initial signs of a broader strategic engineering that could permanently redefine the political and security balance of the Levant? A complementary, equally important question pertains to the reaction of the Arab world—a reaction that, thus far, resembles silence, caution, and observation more than active, purposeful action.
Thomas Barrack at the Center Stage: Temporary Mediator or Architect of a New Order?
Thomas Barrack's diplomatic movements gain added significance as they encompass two different levels of political action simultaneously. The first level is his public and semi-public statements about the necessity of "aligning" Syria and Lebanon in security and political spheres. The second is the network of meetings and consultations he has held with Lebanese, Israeli, and some regional officials, the details of which have been less transparently covered by the media. These two levels combined create an image that appears to go beyond classic mediation or an attempt to reduce temporary tensions.
In his speeches and conversations, especially within regional diplomatic circles, Barrack emphasizes the need to find "region-centric" solutions for the crises in Syria and Lebanon. This proposition appears neutral and even positive on the surface, but inherently carries an important presumption: a message that synchronizes the crises and links the security destinies of the two countries, making the resolution of one impossible without the other. Such a premise is precisely the point that provokes the sensitivity of local actors and resistance movements.
The underlying logic of this approach is understandable from Washington's and Tel Aviv's perspective. Reducing border threats, containing or disarming non-state armed actors, and creating a relatively stable environment for investment and economic reconstruction are goals repeated in most unofficial documents and meetings. However, the manner in which these objectives are pursued and the role played by external actors with a long history of political lobbying and influence intensify concerns that major security decisions may be taken without the genuine participation of indigenous and social forces.
The Concept of 'Integration' at the Heart of the Dispute: Atwan's Reading and Rival Interpretations
Abdul Bari Atwan and media outlets aligned with the resistance axis interpret the concept of "integration of Lebanon into Syria" not as formal annexation or administrative unity, but as a form of security-political integration. This interpretation rests on the assumption that changing the security architecture of the region will ultimately lead to the weakening or elimination of the role of non-state armed actors—actors that have served for decades as a deterrent against Israel and a political bargaining tool.
This alarming perspective is not merely due to sheer pessimism; it is rooted in the region's historical experience. Continuous US pressure to disarm the resistance, Israel's field actions on the Lebanese and Syrian borders, and the attempt to impose new realities without a comprehensive political agreement all reinforce the concern that the "rapprochement" project will ultimately lead to a shift in the balance of power to the detriment of the resistance axis.
In contrast, another reading views this process as part of a phased plan for crisis management. According to this view, the main objective is to establish common security mechanisms to prevent escalation of conflicts and reduce military costs. The fundamental difference between these two interpretations lies in the extent and quality of local actors' participation. The less genuine the involvement of indigenous forces in designing and securing their interests, the closer Atwan's cautionary narrative becomes to reality; and the more authentic and transparent this participation is, the greater the possibility of interpreting this process as a controlled re-arrangement aimed at achieving relative stability.
The 'Arab World': Passive Observer or Strategic Actor?
The prevailing behavior of most Arab countries towards these developments has thus far resembled cautious observation. This situation is the result of a combination of factors, ranging from internal security concerns and reliance on Western support to worries about the spread of conflict and economic and diplomatic calculations. However, the continuation of this approach entails significant strategic costs.
The first scenario is the continuation of the status quo, remaining in the role of a spectator. In this state, the US and Israel will have a freer hand in redefining border security rules and containing the resistance.
The second scenario is the active but costly entry of Arab governments into the equation, which requires a level of coordination and political consensus that is currently lacking. Furthermore, such an approach carries the risk of escalating direct tension with Washington and Tel Aviv.
The third scenario, the most dangerous option, is the continuation of appeasement and the gradual acceptance of structural changes. In this situation, what is presented today as a security adjustment could in the future lead to a redefinition of the role of sovereignties and an effective reduction of their decision-making independence—a change established not through formal treaties, but through the imposition of facts on the ground.
New Order Without New Borders
The core warning is conceptual: the victory of foreign hegemony in determining the rules of the security and political game can marginalize the role of local wills without changing the maps.
If Washington and Tel Aviv succeed in gradually implementing their plans to contain or neutralize the arms of the resistance movements while offering superficial guarantees for the survival of governmental structures, the region will practically enter a phase of "redefinition of influence." This situation has serious functional similarities to historical partition patterns, with the difference being that this time it is presented under the guise of stability, reconstruction, and technocratic governance.
The responsibility of Arab governments is paramount. The message of this situation seems clear: the silence and passivity of Arab capitals today will lead to heavy costs tomorrow in terms of deterrence, political credibility, and regional role. Exiting the position of observer and playing a constructive role as a guarantor of regional security is the only way to prevent "security integration" from gradually turning into the "imposition of order."
End Article