Tom Barrack’s ‘failed state’ jibe masks decades of US subversion, meddling in Lebanon

By Hussein Mousavi

When US special envoy to Syria and ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack labeled Lebanon a “failed state” led by a “foreign terrorist organization,” his words carried more than condescension - they carried historical amnesia.

Barrack, a billionaire friend of US President Donald Trump, said the US “will not get deeper involved in a situation where a failed state dictates the pace,” adding that Washington “would support the Israeli regime if it becomes more aggressive toward Lebanon.”

Such remarks fit neatly into Washington’s long-standing narrative: Lebanon’s dysfunction is self-made and the inevitable result of corruption and armed groups.

But a closer look at the past six decades tells a different story. Much of Lebanon’s vulnerability was not self-inflicted but engineered, directly or indirectly, by the US and other Western hegemonic powers.

US ramps up pressure on ‘failed state’ Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah

An American diplomat claims that Lebanon is collapsing, pressing the Arab country to disarm Hezbollah and open dialogue with the Israeli regime.

Lebanon’s aborted space program

In the early 1960s, Lebanon was far from a fragile or dependent state. Its scientists were building rockets and making notable progress in various fields.

Between 1960 and 1967, the Lebanese Rocket Society, working alongside the national army, developed the “Cedar Project”, producing a series of experimental missiles from Cedar 3 through Cedar 8.

For such a small country, it represented a symbol of ambition, innovation, and self-confidence – a Lebanon that aspired to lead, not follow. And then, abruptly, it all came to a halt.

Western pressure, particularly from the US and France, quietly brought the program to an end. The reason was simple: a technologically advanced Lebanon sitting beside the Israeli regime was deemed “uncomfortable.”

That silent shutdown marked one of the earliest interventions designed to keep Lebanon strategically weak and dependent.

Fifteen years later, it was the Lebanese resistance – not foreign aid – that began to restore that lost sense of power and dignity.

A policy of permanent dependence

From that point onward, Washington consistently refused to equip the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with the means to defend the country’s borders. The rationale never changed: No Arab state should possess significant military power in order to ensure the “security” of the Israeli regime.

Whenever Beirut requested modern defense systems – air defense, heavy artillery, or advanced surveillance – Washington delayed, denied, or quietly derailed the deals.

The outcome was predictable: a dependent army and a divided nation.

Who would defend Lebanon if it were attacked again? The 1982 Israeli invasion provided the answer. It was not the army but the resistance that defended the country.

Today, Barrack’s criticism of Hezbollah’s arms ignores this basic contradiction. The US never wanted Lebanon to possess a deterrent, neither a state-owned nor a popular one.

Crisis made in Washington’s boardrooms

Fast forward to 2019, when Lebanon’s financial system imploded. Billions vanished from the Central Bank and private institutions.

At the center of the collapse stood Riyad Salameh, the long-serving Central Bank governor, who is now under European investigation for embezzlement, money laundering, and forgery.

For decades, Salameh enjoyed Washington’s full confidence. He was framed as the “guarantor of stability,” the model central banker perfectly aligned with IMF and US economic doctrines.

But his downfall exposed an uncomfortable truth: the very networks Washington championed – Salameh and the Association of Banks – were the architects of Lebanon’s economic collapse.

So when Barrack calls Lebanon a failed state today, he’s condemning the ruins of a house Washington itself helped design.

When US sanctions kept the lights off

Following the 2019 collapse, Lebanon plunged into literal darkness.

As fuel shortages worsened, Iran offered to send shipments, and the Lebanese resistance pledged to distribute them fairly, without political or sectarian bias.

The hawks in the US responded with threats, not solutions.

American officials, including then-ambassador Dorothy Shea, warned Beirut that accepting Iranian aid would violate US sanctions. Envoy Amos Hochstein provided no clear alternatives, while the Treasury Department refused to grant any exceptions.

The Biden administration blocked the Iranian fuel shipments and then failed to deliver the alternative fuel it had promised.

This episode laid bare Washington’s double standard: Lebanon could neither purchase affordable energy from its neighbors or allies, nor rely on its Western “partners.”

The suffering that followed was not collateral damage, but a deliberate policy.

Washington’s hand in Lebanese politics

Even the so-called “failed state” Barrack derides has rarely been allowed to govern itself.

Successive US administrations have directly influenced the selection of Lebanese leaders, from presidents to prime ministers and others in the power corridors.

When Joseph Aoun was elected president, senior Lebanese figures quietly admitted that the decision came “by phone call,” not through a sovereign vote. You can likely guess the source of that call.

The same pattern followed with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, former ICJ top judge, a figure openly favored by Washington, Paris, and select regional capitals.

So, when Barrack mocks Lebanon’s sovereignty, he is criticizing a system his own government helped design and continues to control.

Resistance as the convenient scapegoat

Barrack’s remarks blame Hezbollah’s weapons for Lebanon’s paralysis, portraying the resistance as the root of failure. But history tells a different story.

Every attempt Lebanon made to build its own deterrent – whether through science, the army, or diplomacy – was systematically undermined by Western intervention.

What Barrack calls a “failed state” is, in reality, a state repeatedly denied the right to stand on its own.

His comparison to Syria is equally hollow. He praised the West-backed HTS-led regime in Damascus for “rebuilding and opening up,” yet Syria remains mired in social, economic, and political crises, quietly normalizing ties with the Israeli regime in exchange for Western favor.

If that is Washington’s measure of success, then perhaps failure is Lebanon’s last honorable option.

A manufactured failure

Lebanon’s collapse is not simply the result of internal choices and policies. Rather, it is the outcome of decades of external interference, selective support, and economic manipulation by the very powers now lecturing Beirut about reform.

The only “success” Washington seems to recognize is one where the Lebanese government and army turn their guns inward, igniting another civil war to disarm the resistance.

That, apparently, is what defines a “functional” state in the worldview of Barrack and those he represents.

Accountability before accusations

If Barrack truly wants to talk about accountability, he should begin with Washington’s own record.

From the silenced scientists of the 1960s to the starving citizens of 2022, every stage of Lebanon’s decline bears the unmistakable marks of deliberate design.

Lebanon is not a failed state by nature. It is a state that has been systematically failed by the very powers now pointing fingers.

In Washington’s playbook, a “successful” Lebanon is one that kneels, follows Israeli occupation doctrine, and disarms its resistance. Anything else is branded a “failed state.”

Hussein Mousavi is a Lebanese journalist and commentator.

(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.co.uk