Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1792250318-scaled

Lebanon’s government has resigned, now what?

Last week's devastating explosions in Beirut have forced a reckoning for the government that the Lebanese people have long been calling for.

Analysis | Middle East

The horrific and totally avoidable explosions that ravaged Beirut on August 4 have once again shown that Lebanon’s ruling class is corrupt, inept, uncaring, and unfit to govern. The legendary resilience of the Lebanese people has proven powerless in the face of the political elite’s endemic corruption, callousness, greed, nepotism, and sectarian patronage. In the aftermath of the explosions at the Beirut port and the resulting massive homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and hunger, it has become clear that the government — President Michel Aoun, Prime Minister Hassan Diab, and the ministers — the judiciary, and the parliament cannot extricate Lebanon from the current national calamity.

The cabinet’s resignation Monday, which followed the resignation of two ministers, is unlikely to mollify the protesters and most of the Lebanese people because the people’s anger has been directed at President Aoun and his supporters (“Aounis”) within the high echelons of government. Speedy elections are also unlikely to succeed. The sectarian virus that has afflicted the political system for decades must be treated before real reform occurs — government removal and early elections notwithstanding.

Most senior leaders are beholden to different centers of power and are incapable of acting independently. President Aoun, for example, is a political creature of Hezbollah and Syria and by extension Iran. They have found ways to steal public monies that belong to the state. For example, Hezbollah controls the Beirut port and therefore collects and pockets customs fees on imported goods. President Aoun collects customs fees on imported goods, like cement, that come into “his” port at Ra’s Sil’ata.

Other powerful factions have their own ports, including Tripoli, Juniyah, Sidon, Tyre, al-Zahrani, and Khaldah. These mafia-like groups siphon off customs fees, leaving the government bankrupt and the people more furious. According to my own sources, President Aoun recently refused to allow cargo ships carrying grain and other food supplies to dock in the Tripoli port because he won’t get the fees from those ships.

The country’s senior leaders are unable to govern and have no money to pay for rebuilding Beirut. They have lost the trust of the Lebanese people and international donors. Influential religious sects — Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and Hezbollah — pursue their economic and political interests through their contacts in the government.

The judiciary is equally controlled by these groups. President Aoun has rejected calls for an international investigation of the explosions for fear that he and his cronies might be indicted for criminal negligence. The current judicial system cannot possibly conduct an impartial investigation because it’s part of the problem.

Port managers and senior politicians must answer basic questions. For example, who was responsible for storing thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate for at least six years in a port hangar so close to residential areas? Were there any bribes or kickbacks involved in the unloading and storing of these deadly chemicals? Was the hangar under the control of the port authority, the government, or a particular influential group such as Hezbollah? If, as has been reported, port officials had repeatedly asked government officials to remove the ammonium nitrate because of its potential danger, who in the government ignored these pleas and why? Why didn’t the judiciary respond to the please from port officials to remove these materials? Since senior government officials are potentially liable, any investigation they conduct would be whitewash and would lead to a coverup. 

The Lebanese state is failing and is rapidly devolving into chaotic and warring smaller regions run by warlords. Meanwhile, poverty, lawlessness, unemployment, and hunger are becoming rampant.

The destruction from the explosions has left most Lebanese angry and exhausted. Calls for  “revolution” against those in power are heard all across Lebanon. Many educated young Lebanese no longer see a future in their country and probably would migrate to Western countries. Lebanon can ill afford the ensuing brain drain.

During his visit to Lebanon last week, French President Emmanuel Macron promised the people he met in the streets that French aid would go to their specific needs, not to “corrupt” officials. This statement also applies to President Aoun, not just the cabinet.

While Macron was speaking, President Aoun turned his back and walked away, presumably not wanting to hear about official corruption or possible international investigations. Many street protesters view the ruling class as a mafia family that considers Lebanon its private fiefdom. Some protesters are already calling for violence against those in power, including Aoun’s presidency and Hezbollah.

Despite the rising poverty and homelessness, many senior officials are living in palaces, drive expensive cars, and enjoy vulgar luxuries. As their salaries cannot afford such lavish lifestyle, they have turned to raiding the public purse through corruption. International donors, including the IMF, have already signaled that aid will go directly to specific projects, not to government officials.

The numbers tell the ugly story of today’s Lebanon: over 160 people were killed in the explosions, and at least 6,000 have been injured and maimed. A quarter of a million Beirutis are homeless. The country has only a one-month supply of grain and wheat to bake bread, 40 percent of the population are unemployed, and nearly 50 percent are below the poverty line. Because of inflation and the sinking value of the Lebanese currency, most Lebanese can no longer afford to pay for basic foods. People have resorted to a bartering system where some women are trading their clothes and household items for a gallon of milk or a dozen of eggs.  

U.N. Trusteeship Council for Lebanon

If Lebanon is to be saved, the United Nations should establish a Trusteeship Council for Lebanon that would govern the country for five years, which most Lebanese would welcome. President Aoun, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria, however, will vigorously oppose it.

The Trusteeship Council for Lebanon will have to address the following tasks urgently:

  1. 1. Replace the current government with a TCL coordinator who will work with community leaders on critical reconstruction and revitalization projects.
  2. 2. Dismantle the sectarian confessional system of government and change the constitution to allow for electing the president and the prime minister on the basis of one person one vote.
  3. 3. Rebuild the Beirut port and restructure the management of all ports under a national Port Authority accountable for all customs fees. The Port Authority would transfer these fees to the national treasury directly, not through warlords or political parties.
  4. 4. Create a system of financial accountability and a transparent system of taxation run by qualified civil servants.
  5. 5. Invest in job creation projects and enterprises to help reduce unemployment.
  6. 6. Prepare a transparent electoral system for the purpose of holding national elections for a president, prime minister, and parliament within four years.
  7. 7. Invite the new government to assume control of the new Lebanon at the end of five years. 

The confessional system, which has governed Lebanon since the 1940s, has fostered systemic corruption and sectarian nepotism at the highest levels. It has destroyed the country and must be abolished. No one knows whether a people-based system of government grounded in honesty, accountability, and transparency will work, but drastic restructuring of the country’s institutions must be done in order to build a new and more stable Lebanon.


August 9, 2020: Protesters in Beirut Downtown after the tragic explosion happened in Port of Beirut on August 4, 2020 (Photo: Hiba Al Kallas / Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.