Lebanon’s sovereignty tested by internal and external forces ahead of 2026 elections

By Sondoss Al Asaad

As Lebanon slowly approaches its next parliamentary election scheduled for May 2026, the country finds itself under unprecedented pressure at the intersection of politics, economics, and security.

These pressures are not isolated incidents but constitute coordinated attempts aimed at reshaping the political and social landscape before ballots are cast early next year.

A combination of diplomatic blackmail, economic coercion, media manipulation, and military intimidation is converging to create an environment in which Lebanon’s sovereignty and the genuine representation of its people, particularly within resistance-aligned communities, face direct threat.

At the heart of this strategy are two interconnected objectives: manipulating the electoral system to advance specific political interests and exploiting security concerns, particularly along the northern and eastern borders, to justify restrictions and interventions.

Together, these dynamics amount to a comprehensive pre-election assault on Lebanese autonomy.

Electoral manipulation: Lebanese forces and expatriate votes

A central element of this strategy is the Lebanese Forces’ push to amend the electoral law. While the stated aim is to facilitate voting for Lebanese expatriates, the underlying objective is far more tactical and strategic.

Hezbollah resistance movement, designated as a so-called “terrorist” organization in several countries, faces unique challenges in securing votes from the diaspora. Hence, many Lebanese living abroad fear legal or political repercussions if they vote for Hezbollah representatives, creating vulnerability that the Lebanese Forces are poised to exploit.

By modifying the law to simplify expatriate voting, the Lebanese Forces, formerly a militia group, aims to redirect votes away from Hezbollah, thereby reducing its parliamentary representation and weakening its political influence.

This maneuver, cloaked in procedural language, is less about electoral transparency and more about leveraging existing fears and divisions to engineer a parliament more aligned with donor and Western interests.

Behind this attempt at electoral manipulation lies a broader effort to undermine the social foundation of the resistance. By targeting funding networks, community organizations, and civic engagement initiatives, external actors aim to curtail Hezbollah’s influence not only in the political sphere but also within the country’s social fabric, limiting its capacity to mobilize communities through legitimate democratic means.

Siege without bombs: Economic war on the Lebanese people

Economic coercion has emerged as a central instrument in this multi-dimensional campaign, whereby US and Persian Gulf agencies are actively exerting pressure on banks, money transfer institutions, and currency exchange companies to disrupt funding channels linked to Hezbollah and affiliated social organizations.

Enhanced scrutiny of financial transactions, intensified intelligence coordination at airports and ports, and systematic asset monitoring have become routine measures aimed at restricting the flow of funds.

Even Persian Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, have imposed tighter controls on Lebanese residents’ ability to transfer money abroad, forcing some humanitarian and civil society organizations to operate through alternative, often precarious, channels.

While these measures are often framed as anti-money laundering initiatives, their practical impact directly targets the resistance’s support networks, creating economic pressure designed to influence political outcomes.

This evolving economic siege illustrates how financial instruments have been repurposed as tools of political leverage—eroding Lebanon’s economic sovereignty and pressuring its institutions to conform to externally imposed agendas.

Reshaping the narrative

Alongside financial coercion, a sophisticated media and political campaign has emerged, aimed at reframing Lebanon’s internal dynamics through an external, often adversarial lens.

Western and Israeli media outlets increasingly depict the Hezbollah resistance movement as a rapidly expanding military threat, selectively emphasizing certain activities to alarm diplomats, policy circles, and international observers.

Analytical reports are calibrated to convey the impression that the Lebanese state, particularly its army, is incapable of effectively countering the resistance.

This narrative serves to legitimize foreign intervention and domestic restrictions targeting Hezbollah, while portraying such actions as neutral or necessary for maintaining “stability” and “security” of the Arab country.

In reality, this forms part of a broader strategic communication effort designed to create pretexts for sustained economic, political, and security pressure on Lebanon.

The reduction of resistance influence is thus framed not as external interference but as a supposed step toward stabilization and reform.

Renewed Israeli concern over northern Lebanon has been expressed through large-scale military maneuvers, publicized threats, and orchestrated media statements underscoring the “existential” danger posed by Hezbollah.

These measures are crafted to generate political anxiety, justify continued violations of Lebanese sovereignty, and pressure national institutions to act in ways that align with Israeli and Western geopolitical interests.

The consequences are tangible. Civilians and infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and vital public services, are indirectly targeted, obstructing reconstruction efforts and impeding the return of displaced populations from border villages adjacent to Occupied Palestine.

Along the Syrian frontier, attacks by groups linked to al-Julani’s armed networks similarly prevent residents from reclaiming their lands, fostering insecurity and forced displacement.

The combined effect is the systematic weakening of the state, the fragmentation of local communities, and the restriction of Hezbollah’s capacity to sustain its strategic presence.

By depopulating and destabilizing these frontier regions, external actors seek to sever the resistance’s logistical and social lifelines, undermining Lebanon’s sovereignty and its ability to withstand foreign manipulation and control.

Political complicity of PM Salam’s cabinet

Lebanon’s de facto cabinet, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has in many respects acted as a conduit for external directives. Decisions to block humanitarian aid flights, reject reconstruction initiatives, and implement financial and judicial measures aligned with Western frameworks underscore how key state institutions have become partially subordinated to foreign influence.

These actions reinforce the perception that Lebanon’s sovereignty is increasingly constrained, with its national policies shaped as much by donor conditionality as by domestic priorities.

Despite these pressures, Hezbollah’s social and political influence remains remarkably resilient. Its networks are deeply rooted in local communities, providing social services, humanitarian assistance, and political representation that extend well beyond its military dimension.

Resistance, in this context, is not merely an armed movement but a social and historical institution, embedded in the collective memory of confronting occupation since 1982. Any attempt to undermine it is therefore met with enduring popular support, demonstrating the limits of external influence.

The pressures facing Lebanon are further intensified by regional security strategies that reach beyond Israeli influence. Through the creation of zones of insecurity and economic dependency, these projects aim to disconnect Lebanon from regional allies, isolate communities aligned with the resistance, and entrench foreign-controlled security structures within the country.

This manipulation of Lebanon’s borders serves a dual purpose: it erodes local governance and grassroots resilience while enabling external powers to dictate security and political outcomes in strategically sensitive regions.

Uncivilised, animalistic behaviour of US envoy

Meanwhile, US envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack has escalated his hate-filled rhetoric, issuing warnings of chaos and consequences tied to aid, reconstruction, and political concessions.

Barrack’s strategy explicitly links US support to disarmament, political compliance, and normalization agendas. While these threats are serious, their real-world impact depends on the sustained application of institutional, economic, and field-level pressures, which are already observable across Lebanon.

The combined effect of financial siege, media targeting, border insecurity, and diplomatic blackmail constitutes a comprehensive attempt to weaken resistance-aligned communities and influence the pre-election environment.

Protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty is a must

Lebanon is under a multi-dimensional pre-election assault. The strategy combines electoral manipulation, financial coercion, media and political targeting, and regional-military pressure, aiming to restructure the political order, marginalize resistance communities, and impose externally dictated security solutions.

To counter this, Lebanon must adopt a unified national response to protect the integrity and transparency of the electoral process, resist financial and media blackmail through domestic institutions, reassert political sovereignty and ensure decisions reflect national, not external, priorities, and maintain social cohesion and popular support networks that underpin resilience against external pressures.

Without a coordinated response, Lebanon risks a prolonged period of dependency, manipulation, and political subjugation.

The nation’s survival, and its ability to assert its independence, depends on the resilience of its popular base, the strength of its institutions, and the preservation of its sovereignty against foreign and domestic forces seeking to reshape its destiny.

Only through the combination of social cohesion, institutional integrity, and political vigilance can Lebanon ensure that elections reflect the will of its people, rather than the designs of foreign powers, and prevent the imposition of a reality that undermines its sovereignty.

Sondoss Al Asaad is a Lebanese journalist and political analyst, based in Beirut.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir