Responding to Ambassador Barrack: the Conversation We Need to Have

October 22, 2025

Dear readers,

I owe you an apology for my silence. I’ve been busy growing my Instagram presence (follow along if you haven’t already!), but the truth is this: I had writer’s block.

The thought of drones humming over Beirut keeps me awake at night, even from afar. My anxiety turned into paralysis until Ambassador Tom Barrack found the words I couldn’t. His recent statement on Syria and Lebanon cuts through diplomatic niceties with alarming clarity. Many will dislike his directness or dismiss it as “an American plan, not a Lebanese plan.” But those critics are part of the problem. When your interests align with survival, you don’t get to be picky about whose voice articulates it first.

I urge you to read his full statement. Many may disagree with or dislike his style, but no one can afford to ignore his message. The time has come to stop calling on Lebanon to face the music, there will soon not be any ‘ahla leila ahla nas’ left, only doomsday.

What follows is the conversation his statement sparked in my head and the questions I wish I could ask him directly.

---

The Conversation

“The Lebanese Cabinet and Council of Ministers are trapped in sectarian paralysis.” Are they really?

With all due respect, Ambassador, let me offer an alternative framing:

When a government receives a vote of confidence, when a parliamentary majority supports an investiture statement explicitly excluding “armed resistance” for the first time in decades, when the Lebanese Army successfully redeploys to the South, when ministers articulate clear positions on state monopoly over force, and YET no material progress is made - that is not paralysis.

That is an organisation refusing to accept defeat, enabled by a political ally controlling parliamentary procedure, while the rest of the country’s leadership lacks the courage to call it what it is.

Hezbollah does not equal the Shia community, as you’ve repeated multiple times yourself. Yet we - and I include Lebanon’s current leadership in this “we”- continue to treat the current Shia parliamentary and cabinet obstruction as if it represents a legitimate status quo requiring “balance” and “careful threading.”

It doesn’t. It represents losers clinging to power while standing on the wrong side of history, emboldened by a commander in chief who won’t name them as such and continues to get on their good side.

“One Country, One Military remains more aspiration than reality, constrained by Hizballah’s political dominance and the fear of civil unrest.” What civil unrest?

When the breakdown in question puts everyone against one bloc - when Christian, Sunni, Druze, and many Shia voices themselves have signaled exhaustion with militia rule - calling this “sectarian paralysis” legitimises obstruction as if it were democratic representation.

Here’s what truly threatens Lebanon’s “sectarian balance”: not the isolation of Hezbollah, but the implosion that will come when the majority tires of being held hostage in the name of preserving unity with those who destroyed it.

The real paralysis isn’t sectarian. It’s political:

• A parliament unable to debate electoral law amendments supported by over half its members because one man refuses to put it on the agenda

• A government still negotiating with the very group resisting its mandate

• A delegation appearing at IMF meetings with fragmented messages because consensus is blocked by those who benefit from the collapsed system

This is already institutional breakdown. It’s just dressed in the language of “process” and “preserving national unity.”

But here’s the irony: we are doing the opposite of preserving national unity by tiptoeing around those who led us to this breakdown. Every euphemism, every concession made in the name of “threading carefully or else civil war”, these don’t prevent conflict. They defer the inevitable while a majority’s patience runs out.

“The Lebanese Cabinet...are attempting to make a good faith step forward, which Israel has completely discounted.” Why is Israel, and most importantly many Lebanese, discounting it?

Because shifting vibes don’t disarm militias. And I keep asking: How do we get past this moment? When does rhetoric become reality?

Nearly ten months into this administration, much has shifted. Narratives have changed, the regional tide has turned, even the vibe in Lebanon feels different. But as the many have said: the rhetoric does not match reality.

You say “Beirut continues to hesitate.” But in my opinion the hesitation isn’t collective, it’s concentrated. The majority of Lebanese aren’t hesitating. Some of our leaders are. Not because they lack mandate, but because they fear isolating and facing obstructors.

So we remain stuck, watching as leaders speak eloquently about sovereignty while granting veto power to those who actively undermine it, and international partners grow frustrated watching a government with popular mandate unable to exercise it.

A majority is frustrated. The euphoria that greeted President Aoun and PM Salam is slowly transforming into fatigue and deeper polarisation. Yet that majority remains quiet. Only around 12,000 diaspora members have registered to vote for May 2026 elections, a low number for a supposed turning point. Why hasn’t there been mobilisation?

Did we assume the government would handle it? Clearly they’re not doing it fast or bluntly enough. So when do we empower them? When does the silent majority stand behind leaders willing to turn words into action? Or have we become so accustomed to paralysis that we’ve forgotten sovereignty requires risk?

“Lebanon lacks a viable political alternative representing the Shia community.” Does that justify accommodation?

Many, including yourself, have rightfully flagged this vacuum. Without credible Shia voices who can represent the community without being labeled traitors, militias fill the void through monopoly rather than legitimacy.

But Ambassador, how can we pass on the message that this vacuum cannot justify making any concession to the current political group representing “the Shia community” when it actually represents a militia’s survival instinct?

Creating that alternative should be an explicit goal for democratic infrastructure.

“Postponing the 2026 elections under the pretext of war would ignite major chaos within Lebanon.” Would it just be chaos?

Your scenario is chilling because it’s credible: if Lebanon faces intensified Israeli military action before May 2026, interested parties will almost certainly move to postpone elections under “national security” pretexts.

I would go further than “major chaos”: It would be the end. Not just of this government’s mandate, but of Lebanon’s last chance at democratic legitimacy.

“Now is the time for Lebanon to act.” But who is “Lebanon”?

Who is “Lebanon” in that sentence…?

If it’s the government, they are acting slowly, cautiously, with one hand tied by the very “sectarian balance” you describe. If it’s the people, we’re waiting for leadership to give us something concrete to mobilize behind. If it’s regional partners, they’ve offered frameworks that Beirut “declined to adopt due to Hizballah representation.”

We’re in a doom loop. And the only way out is for someone to take the risk of things getting messy, because they inevitably will.

“Should Beirut continue to hesitate, Israel may act unilaterally – and the consequences would be grave.” How grave?

Messy is coming either way:

Option 1 (which you articulated): Israeli military escalation that destroys what’s left of Lebanon’s infrastructure, kills more civilians, and hands Hezbollah the victim narrative it needs to justify postponing elections and entrenching its power.

Option 2 (what I hope for): Democratic confrontation led by a mobilized majority, as the March 14 movement once did, that empowers this government to isolate obstructors, name them publicly, implement disarmament frameworks with teeth, and face down threats of “civil unrest” with the legitimacy of popular mandate and international backing.

Cautious doesn’t equal status quo anymore. Cautious equals doomsday by default.

The message is clear: if this government cannot deliver disarmament, if parliamentary procedure stays blocked, if the resistance maintains negotiating power, Israel will act unilaterally. And when they do, Lebanon won’t get “one more try.” We’ll get rubble, displacement, and another lost generation.

So what’s my plea?

Ambassador, my plea to you, to Ambassador Michel Issa when he arrives in Beirut, to every partner invested in Lebanon’s future, to our President, to our government:

• Stop using euphemisms. Call obstruction what it is, and name who is doing it.

• Make clear: These are no longer legitimate stakeholders in Lebanon’s future. They are obstacles to it.

• To Lebanon’s President and government: You have the mandate. Use it. The vote of confidence you received wasn’t an invitation to tread carefully, it was permission to act decisively. Action the disarmament timeline beyond the South. Name the roadblocks. Use constitutional mechanisms to bypass parliamentary deadlock. Risk things getting messy rather than being indefinitely accommodating, because the alternative is messier.

• To the majority of Lebanese watching this unfold: How much longer can we afford to be silent? Not violent or sectarian. But visible. Organised. Ready to vote. Demanding that our leaders exercise their mandate.

“This truly is the last chance”

Ambassador Barrack, you understand what many Lebanese have not yet internalised: this truly is the last chance, and it calls for a new playbook.

I write this with the heaviest of hearts and prayers that your words will be heard not as threat but as truth. The moment demands courage from Lebanon’s leaders to name and sideline obstruction, from international partners to cut the diplomatic language, and from Lebanon’s silent majority to make our voices heard before someone else makes the decision for us.

Let’s pray we reach that point through democratic mobilization rather than more war.

Thank you for your commitment to Lebanon. I hope this reaches you, and more importantly, our leaders. Because if they forget, we cannot afford war reminding them. It needs to be us.

Respectfully,

Kristy Asseily