US Interests Take Priority Over Lebanon: Salam’s Cabinet Faces Dilemma

In recent weeks, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government has increasingly shown alignment with American policies, raising concerns about Lebanon’s sovereignty. The government’s actions suggest it has become an administrative extension of the U.S. embassy in Beirut rather than an independent authority. This trend is illustrated by several key developments that highlight Lebanon’s shifting political landscape.

The following milestones underscore this alignment:

• Trump’s “Eternal Peace” Plan: This initiative aims to neutralize both the Palestinian Resistance and the broader Palestinian cause, promoting a “peace by force” approach, wherein the U.S. and Israel dictate terms to Palestinian groups.
• Raouche Rock Incident: The crisis surrounding Raouche Rock highlighted the government’s reaction to symbols of Resistance, viewing them as threats rather than expressions of national identity.
• Minister of Justice’s Directive: A recent directive treats notaries as extensions of the U.S. Treasury, effectively compromising Lebanon’s legal framework.
• Starlink Agreement: This controversial deal cedes Lebanon’s digital sovereignty to an American company, raising serious privacy and security concerns.

The primary objective of Trump’s plan is not to establish genuine peace but to enforce a unilateral agenda on Palestinians and other Arab nations. Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have acknowledged that the strategic objectives regarding Gaza do not always necessitate military action; instead, they can be achieved through political and economic pressures.

This approach categorizes Lebanon alongside Palestine, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran, presenting a stark choice: comply with the U.S.-Israeli agenda or face increased conflict.

In Lebanon specifically, there is a dual effort to apply international pressure on Palestinian resistance while simultaneously isolating Hezbollah within the country. This dynamic illustrates the intended role of the Salam government, which seems designed to facilitate this strategy.

The government’s reaction during the Raouche Rock crisis is a prime example. When Hezbollah’s Resalat Association illuminated the rock with images commemorating the martyrdom of key Resistance figures, the government reacted vehemently. Rather than acknowledging the event as a symbolic cultural expression, they deemed it a public security risk. Prime Minister Salam even urged the Ministries of Interior, Justice, and Defense to take “decisive” actions, including dissolving the association and prosecuting those involved.

This highlights a troubling perspective: honoring Resistance figures who stood against Israel is treated as a crime, while ceding national wealth and sovereignty to foreign interests goes unpunished.

The Raouche incident thus symbolizes a broader cultural struggle, as any public commemoration of the Resistance is seen as counter to Washington’s directives. The government’s other controversial action was Circular No. 1355, issued by Minister of Justice Adel Nassar. This circular mandates that notaries verify the identity of the “economic owner” involved in any transaction and requires them to review U.S. sanctions regulations before notarizing contracts.

If a party is listed under these sanctions, their transactions cannot be notarized, under threat of legal prosecution. This regulation undermines the fundamental principles of contract freedom and property rights in Lebanon.

Legal authority within Lebanon should be governed by national laws and court rulings, not dictated by foreign entities, such as the U.S. Treasury. The circular effectively transforms notaries from neutral witnesses into agents enforcing external financial directives, severely limiting the legal capacity of Lebanese citizens who may appear on international sanctions lists.

This move is not just an administrative misstep; it represents an official recognition of foreign oversight over Lebanon’s legal system.

Another significant issue arises from the Starlink licensing agreement. The contract between the Ministry of Telecommunications and an American company was enacted without parliamentary approval, violating Law 431/2002. Moreover, it permitted Lebanese data to be stored on servers in Qatar, contravening Article 72 of the Electronic Transactions Law, which mandates local data storage for a minimum of three years.

Consequently, the state has effectively relinquished its digital sovereignty to a foreign company connected to U.S. security interests, exposing Lebanese data abroad without adequate privacy or cybersecurity protections.

The government has framed this concession as an “international license,” yet in reality, it represents an illegal surrender of control over Lebanon’s digital landscape to an external entity.

When considering the Trump plan, the alignment of Arab states, the Raouche incidents, the Justice Minister’s circular, and the Starlink agreement, it becomes evident that compliance with U.S. directives has transitioned from being a peripheral issue to a fundamental aspect of Lebanese governance.

Salam’s government appears more accountable to Washington than to its own citizens, setting the stage for Lebanon to fall into what can be described as a “peace by force” paradigm imposed by U.S. leadership. This trajectory indicates a singular path: from coercing Hamas and the Palestinian populace into submission, to suppressing symbols of Resistance in Beirut, transforming judicial and administrative bodies into instruments of U.S. sanctions enforcement, and ultimately surrendering the nation’s digital framework to American control.