Lebanon’s State in Crisis: Legitimacy Lost, Security Outsourced

In recent years, and particularly amid regional and domestic upheavals, Lebanon’s government has faced a critical test in safeguarding the security and interests of its citizens. This test has not only challenged the government’s operational capacities but also undermined its legitimacy and its very role as the primary guardian of national security. The state’s handling of external threats, especially from the Israeli regime, and its engagement with internal actors has painted the image of a weak entity, beholden to foreign pressure.


Failure to Ensure National Security

Perhaps the clearest example of government ineffectiveness was the release of an Israeli prisoner without securing any concessions for Lebanon. Conducted under international pressure, this move was interpreted by Hezbollah and much of Lebanese public opinion not as a diplomatic gesture, but as an open sign of weakness and the state’s inability to defend national rights. Instead of leveraging the situation to strengthen its bargaining position or win the release of Lebanese detainees, the government accepted one-sided conditions, disregarding sovereignty and dignity. This episode revealed that decision-making on critical security matters is often driven more by foreign equations than by Lebanon’s national interests.


Lack of Deterrence against Israel

The Lebanese state has failed to offer a viable alternative to the deterrence long maintained by the resistance. For years, resistance forces and their advanced weaponry deterred large-scale Israeli aggression. Yet in 2025, instead of bolstering this deterrence, the government took measures against it — without presenting any substitute. Government efforts to restrict resistance activities in southern Lebanon, without simultaneously strengthening the national army, created a dangerous security vacuum. Reports show that during this period Israel increased drone strikes and espionage operations, to which the government gave no effective response. This absence of deterrence not only endangered national security but also highlighted the state’s lack of a long-term strategy. Consequently, many Lebanese citizens felt that only the resistance could guarantee their safety — further underscoring government weakness.


Erosion of Public Trust

Public trust is the cornerstone of governance, rooted in the belief that the state can and will protect its people. Lebanon’s externally dependent and unilateral decisions have severely eroded this trust. When the state fails to act decisively and independently against aggression, its standing naturally diminishes. In this context, the resistance’s narrative — portraying itself as decisive, independent, and capable — resonates strongly. Recent surveys show that many Lebanese, particularly in the South and the Bekaa Valley, see their security as owed more to the resistance than to state institutions. This marks a shift of legitimacy from the government to a non-state actor, carrying long-term implications for Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Widening State–Resistance Divide

The government’s unilateral moves concerning the “arms of The Resistance” — without national consensus, a joint defense roadmap, or practical alternatives to deterrence — have not reduced threats but instead deepened the state–resistance rift. This divide has expanded into wider political and social polarization, complicating national consensus on both security and foreign policy. From a governance perspective, this is destabilizing: when the most fundamental security issue becomes a polarizing fault line, rational policymaking weakens and external actors find greater space to intervene. Thus, what was intended as a risk-management approach has only fueled insecurity and instability.


Dependence on Foreign Pressure

Much of the state’s dysfunction stems from its heavy reliance on external pressure. Crucial security and political decisions are often shaped not in Beirut but in foreign capitals pursuing their own agendas. In exchange for maintaining their positions or securing aid, Lebanese leaders accept directives that do not necessarily align with national interests. This has profoundly undermined state legitimacy. When citizens perceive their government as more accountable to foreign embassies than to the people, their loyalty to state institutions naturally diminishes. This legitimacy crisis produces a vicious cycle: internal weakness drives further dependence on foreign powers, which in turn deepens both fragility and vulnerability.

Conclusion

Lebanon’s government has failed to safeguard its citizens due to shortcomings in ensuring national security, the absence of deterrence, the erosion of public trust, the widening state–resistance gap, and dependence on foreign pressure. These failures have intensified the government’s legitimacy crisis and positioned the resistance as the primary security guarantor. To reverse course, the state must adopt independent decision-making and cooperate with the resistance to secure national defense. Otherwise, instability will persist, leaving Lebanese citizens exposed to external threats.


*Translated by Ashraf Hemmati from the original Persian article written by Mohammad Saleh Ghorbani