BEIRUT— U.S. foreign policy, long celebrated by Washington as a beacon of democracy and human rights, is in reality a carefully engineered system of global corruption and control.
From imposing economic blockades to orchestrating political chaos, the United States has consistently forced nations to serve its strategic interests while masking exploitation under the rhetoric of freedom.
Now, Thomas Barrack, the U.S. Special Envoy to Syria, adds Lebanon to this narrative, labeling it a “failed state” — a claim that ignores decades of American interference, the resilience of the Lebanese people, and the pivotal role of regional allies in defending the nation’s sovereignty.
Lebanon, the small country that has resisted all attempts at subjugation—from the French Mandate to the Israeli occupation—has always been a testing ground for these dirty American policies that attempt to impose an aura of guardianship and subservience on nations.
When Barrack, describes Lebanon as a “failed state,” he is, in fact, reproducing an old narrative seven decades old, dating back to when the Marines landed in Beirut in 1958 under the guise of “protecting democracy” according to the Eisenhower Doctrine.
That principle, established to contain the Arab nationalist movement led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, effectively became a pretext for subjecting the Arab region to American hegemony under the guise of “preventing the Middle East from falling into the hands of communism.” However, the ultimate goal remained the same: to protect Washington’s ambitions and safeguard Israel.
Since then, Washington has never truly left Lebanon—if not with its soldiers, then with its intelligence services, its embassy, and its funds that financed corruption and sectarian politics, rendering the Lebanese state a paralyzed entity that moves only according to signals emanating from the U.S. surveillance den (embassy).
Egyptian mediation: A sham American farce
Meanwhile, the current attempts at “mediation” in Lebanon via Cairo are nothing but an extension of that same American policy.
The Egyptian mediation, which is trying to expand the “mechanism” to include civilians alongside the military, appears on the surface to be an attempt to resolve the crisis, but in reality, it is a translation of the American-Israeli project aimed at neutralizing the resistance in the South and stripping it of its effectiveness.
The real objective of this so-called “mediation” is to impose a “freeze” on resistance activity south of the Litani River, in exchange for a token withdrawal of Israeli forces from the five points.
This mediation is nothing but a tool to gradually eliminate Lebanese sovereignty and transform it into an arena of influence shared between Washington and Tel Aviv. When the United States insists on describing Lebanon as a “failed state” and demands the disarmament of the resistance, it is paving the way for a settlement that imposes a new balance of power serving the Israeli project.
Hegemony in Action
In his book titled Notes from the Minefield: United States Intervention in Lebanon and the Middle East, 1945–1958, Erin Gendzier meticulously documents how Washington intervened militarily and politically in Lebanon not to protect “democracy,” but to ensure the continuation of American influence over oil pipelines and the Mediterranean.
For her part, Agnes Corbani, in her study of “U.S. Intervention in Lebanon, 1958 and 1982: Presidential Decision-Making,” explains the decision to intervene in Beirut was part of a broader Cold War strategy aimed at undermining any genuine Arab independence.
Also, former U.S. Ambassador David Hale, in his book American Diplomacy Toward Lebanon: Lessons in Foreign Policy and the Middle East, reveals that Washington has treated Lebanon since its independence as a tool of regional pressure—granting conditional aid and cutting it off whenever it deviates from the American line.
All of this demonstrates that those who describe Lebanon today as a “failed state” are the very same ones who created such situation, imposed a financial and economic blockade, and prevented any non-American aid, especially from Iran and Russia.
The Lebanese Army, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of sovereignty, has been stripped of its capabilities by continuous American pressure to prevent any real armament outside the Western system. Washington refused to grant Lebanon military independence, even when Iran offered to supply it with weapons or oil derivatives that could have alleviated its crises.
Besides, it exposes the American equation based on keeping Lebanon weak so that the Zionist regime of Israel remains secure. As Eisenhower once said, “The enemy must remain outside the walls,” and by “enemy” he meant anyone who refuses to submit to American interests.
Perhaps the most glaring irony is that Washington, which speaks of a “failed state,” is itself a state of corruption—where there are no effective healthcare systems, crime and drugs are rampant, once in a while deadly shooting sprees happen, prisons are filled with Africans and Latinos and there is racial discrimination against non-whites.
A nation that wages wars and destroys peoples in the name of freedom—from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, passing through Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Since its independence, the United States has fought more than 100 wars and intervened in the affairs of more than 50 countries.
How sham American mediation enabled persecution of Bahrain’s opposition leader
If an Iranian diplomat had described Lebanon as a “failed state,” all hell would have broken loose, and we would have seen international and Arab statements accusing Tehran of interfering in Lebanese affairs and “violating sovereignty.” But when the description comes from an American official, it becomes an “explicit opinion” and a “realistic assessment.”
This is the diplomatic hypocrisy that exposes the subservience of the Arab regimes, which have lost all sense of dignity and sovereignty.
Normalization with the Zionist entity has made these regimes even more enslaved to Washington and Tel Aviv, transforming them from national entities into security tools that carry out orders to the letter.
When an American official speaks from Manama—the capital of Bahrain, which joined the normalization wave under the Abraham Accords—about Lebanon’s “failure,” he is, in fact, repeating the same condescending rhetoric that allowed subservient Arab regimes to repress their people and imprison their opponents under the umbrella of unconditional American support.
Take, for example, Sheikh Ali Salman, leader of Bahrain’s opposition, who is unjustly imprisoned and sentenced to life on charges of “espionage for Qatar.” This charge came after Washington itself claimed to be acting as a mediator in the 2011 Bahraini crisis, when peaceful protesters demanded political reform.
At the time, the U.S. administration claimed to be “calling for dialogue” and “protecting stability.” But when the Bahraini regime decided to suppress the opposition and arrest Sheikh Salman, Washington did nothing. In fact, it supported the regime and remained silent about all the violations, simply because Bahrain is a base for the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
The case of Sheikh Salman encapsulates the nature of U.S. relations with client regimes: Washington declares its “mediation” to entrench tyranny and turns a blind eye to repression as long as the regime serves its interests.
This same duplicity is practiced today toward Lebanon: it claims to be committed to reform while imposing sanctions and preventing any economic or political solution outside its sphere of influence.
Even worse, Washington is now appropriating genuine rescue initiatives. When Iran offered oil and aid to Lebanon at the height of its crisis, Washington obstructed it while offering no alternative to alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese people. And when Moscow offered military and technical support to the Lebanese Army, Washington immediately intervened to block the deal under the pretext of “sanctions.” Lebanon’s savior from collapse is not Washington, but rather the support of Iran and the resistance that prevented Lebanon from falling into Israel’s clutches.
As history has taught us, as long as there are those in Lebanon who say no—who take up arms against the occupation, and who reject normalization and subservience—this nation will not be a failed state, but rather a vibrant one, alive with resistance and dignity, standing against the most corrupt empire history has ever known: the United States of America.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
