On Lebanon and the Desired National Security Policy!

How can the state in Lebanon be rebuilt through a national security policy that reconnects sovereignty, reform, and human security? This is a fundamental question, for in every modern state, national security constitutes the organizing framework that safeguards supreme interests, and protects the national entity from collapse. The National Security Policy is not limited to the military dimension but extends to the political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects, placing the human being at once its center and ultimate purpose.

Lebanon, which has never known a clear national security policy since independence, has remained captive to sectarian quotas, political rivalries, and dual decision-making. It has lacked strategic planning and a unified national institution capable of managing security through a comprehensive and inclusive vision. As a result, sovereignty was paralyzed, institutions weakened, and human security in its broad sense deteriorated. International experiences have shown that, in small states, national security is built not on surplus power but on clarity of vision, on balance between sovereignty and reform, and on the combination of positive neutrality and responsible openness. Just as Switzerland transformed neutrality into a national policy, Lebanon can make its positive neutrality a message to both the Arab world and the Mediterranean.

The inter-section between national security and human security is organic and inseparable. There is no security without dignity, and no dignity without a just and capable state. The question therefore remains: can Lebanon, after a century of crises, move from the logic of delegated security to that of national responsibility?

A reading of Lebanon’s history from a national security perspective reveals that the state has never succeeded in protecting itself from internal and external tensions. From the National Pact of (1943), which created a fragile compromise between two identities, to the (1958) crisis that exposed the weakness of internal balance and foreign interference, to the disastrous Cairo Agreement of (1969), and finally to the civil war that destroyed the very idea of the state. After the Taëf Accord (1989), the country was placed under Syrian occupation, which established silent security without sovereignty. Then, after (2005), emerged the duality of “the State and the Non-State,” with Hezbollah holding the decisions of war and peace. The

Syrian war in (2011) deepened divisions and erased Lebanon’s neutrality, once embodied in the Baabda Declaration of (2012), while public trust in institutions continued to erode.

The October 17, 2019 uprising was an exercise in lost potential: citizens transcended sectarian boundaries and demanded sovereignty and reform together, yet the movement collided with a deeply entrenched sectarian order. Then came the Beirut Port explosion of (2020), revealing the collapse of the entire security system administrative, material, and moral. Between (2019) and (2025), the collapse intensified, but signs of transformation began to emerge with the election of General Joseph Aoun as President and the formation of a government led by Judge Dr. Nawaf Salam. Once again, the call was renewed for the monopoly of arms by the state, the adoption of positive neutrality, and the launch of a comprehensive national security strategy. Experience has proven that political deals do not create security or sovereignty, and that human security collapses whenever the constitutional vision of the state is absent. True national security is a system of justice, trust, and institutions governed by national interest rather than by regional or partisan alignments.

Lebanon is not merely a narrow space on the map; it is a civilizational crossroads where East and West converge. Geographically, it is exposed to storms; historically, it carries a plural memory that yearns for unity of meaning. Because geography becomes destiny when vision disappears, the first condition for building national security is to transform this geography from a burden into a mission. The Lebanese Constitution is the founding document of national security, as it connects freedoms, sovereignty, and living together. When read from the perspective of collective security, it becomes evident that social justice, diversity, and positive neutrality are not slogans but civic instruments of protection.

Every regional shift affects Lebanon directly. Since the rise of the Iranian axis after (2003), the Arab system has declined, balance has been lost, and Lebanon has become entangled in the confrontation between an expansionist Iranian project and Arab poles seeking new orientation. The Syrian war of (2011) shattered the principle of self-dissociation: Hezbollah’s intervention alongside the Syrian regime, the influx of millions of refugees, and the transformation of borders into open fronts. Meanwhile, Israel maintained an unstable mutual deterrence, leaving Lebanon suspended between possible war and impossible peace. The Gaza war of (2023) reignited the regional scene, and Lebanon once again found itself a proxy front in the Iranian–Israeli conflict, while the state remained absent from decision-making. In the midst of global changes following the war in Ukraine and the emergence of multipolarity, Lebanon’s survival has become a matter of will and awareness, not of chance.

Yet the year (2025) carries a different opportunity. The election of a new President and a Government that explicitly declared the monopoly of arms by the state and the adoption of positive neutrality marks a true turning point, a moment of testing for regional and international powers that have long treated Lebanon as a balancing ground for their interests.

Lebanon’s transition from a passive recipient to an active actor requires the formulation of an independent national security policy, that redefines the inter-action between the internal and the external solely on the basis of national interest.

The absence of a unified national security framework has made Lebanon a permanent arena for conflicts. Today, there is an urgent need to proclaim principles that translate the spirit of the Constitution into the protection of the human being, the institution, and the borders, and that redefine sovereignty as an ethical responsibility rather than a political slogan. The founding principles of Lebanon’s national security policy must therefore arise from twelve interrelated pillars. the monopoly of arms by the state; realistic positive neutrality; respect for the Constitution and the Taëf Accord; equal citizenship; transparency and accountability; social justice as a shield of sovereignty; integration between security and diplomacy; regional and international cooperation conditioned by sovereignty; human security as a supreme goal; development and reform of military and security institutions; digital and information security; and the establishment of a National Security Council as a permanent coordinating body.

Implementing these principles requires sincere political will and integration among civil, military, academic, and civic institutions. National security is not built by decrees alone but by public culture and collective awareness. Lebanon, long afflicted by the absence of the state, can rebuild itself when it makes the protection of the human being the essence of sovereignty, justice the hallmark of security, and the Constitution the compass of its course. The state that knows itself fears neither history nor geography.