Lebanon stands at a crossroads, facing difficult choices about how to respond to the pressures and promises of a Pax Americana. The parallels with the Roman experience are instructive: periods of enforced peace can bring stability and prosperity, but also risk internal fragmentation and the erosion of self-determination. For Lebanon, the stakes are high—not only in terms of its relationship with Israel, but for the very fabric of its society and statehood In June 19, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack arrived in Beirut carrying what was described as a “roadmap” — one whose symbolism may rival that of the ceasefire agreement. On July 7, Barrack is set to return to the Lebanese capital for a new round of talks with Lebanon’s three top officials, where he will receive the government’s official response to the proposal he presented during his previous visit.
Between his arrival and the anticipated meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the central question remains: Can Lebanon use this window to intensify diplomatic contacts and secure the strongest possible guarantees before finalizing any deal? Barrack’s proposal, presented in a six-page document, reflects not only a U.S. position but also broader international backing. It could potentially reshape Lebanon’s postwar landscape.
At the heart of the proposal is a demand to place all weapons under the control of the Lebanese state. In return, it offers a full Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the start of reconstruction efforts, a detainee exchange initiative, and a pathway to broad international economic support for Lebanon. Lebanon’s movement toward a Pax Americana echoes the Roman strategy in its reliance on military power and the promise of peace and prosperity. However, unlike Rome’s political integration and citizenship extension that secured legitimacy, the U.S. faces Lebanon’s fragmented political landscape and external rivalries that complicate consensus-building. This limits the effectiveness of a Pax Americana in Lebanon, making peace fragile and contingent on managing complex internal and regional dynamics rather than straightforward imperial rule.
This comparison highlights that while military dominance is necessary, the sustainability of peace depends on political legitimacy and inclusion—something the Romans managed more successfully than current U.S. policy in Lebanon
The proposal includes a clear condition: implementation must begin before the end of the year. So, how has Lebanon officially responded?
Key Questions on Lebanon’s Choices Toward a Pax Americana
- What does embracing a Pax Americana mean for Lebanon’s sovereignty?
- Would a stronger alignment with U.S. interests undermine Lebanon’s independent decision-making, or could it provide stability and economic recovery?
- How does U.S. pressure on Hezbollah affect Lebanon’s internal balance?
- With the U.S. making Hezbollah’s exclusion from government a red line, does Lebanon risk deeper internal polarization or potential civil unrest1?
- Is Lebanon’s political system resilient enough to withstand external pressures?
- Can the mechanisms of Lebanese democracy survive if key political actors are sidelined by foreign demands?
- What are the economic trade-offs?
- Does the promise of U.S.-backed economic aid outweigh the risks of alienating significant domestic constituencies?
- How does Lebanon navigate the threat of direct Israeli intervention?
- With U.S. officials warning that failure to constrain Hezbollah could trigger Israeli military action, how should Lebanon balance deterrence, diplomacy, and internal reform1?
- Is there a path to peace with Israel under a Pax Americana?
- Would a U.S.-led order push Lebanon toward normalization with Israel, or would it provoke further resistance?
Similarities Between Pax Americana and Pax Romana
| Aspect | Pax Romana | Pax Americana |
|---|---|---|
| Hegemonic Power | Roman Empire | United States |
| Period of “Peace” | ~200 years (27 BCE – 180 CE) | Post-1945, especially after Cold War |
| Nature of Peace | Relative peace, prosperity, but not war-free | Relative peace, prosperity, but not war-free |
| Internal Dynamics | Decline in unity after external threats faded | U.S. faces polarization as external threats lessen2 |
| Governance | Centralized imperial rule | Liberal democracy, but with hegemonic traits |
| Propaganda/Ideology | Promoted as golden age, but enforced order | Promoted as global order, but enforced order |
| Civil Strife | Civil wars after external threats subdued | U.S. faces internal divisions post-Cold War2 |
Both periods are marked by a dominant power enforcing a relative peace, but also by underlying tensions, civil strife, and the risk of internal fragmentation once external threats diminish23.
What Does Pax Americana Mean for Peace With Israel?
- U.S. Mediation and Pressure: Under a Pax Americana, Lebanon is under intense U.S. pressure to curb Hezbollah’s influence and move toward implementing UN resolutions, particularly those aimed at disarming non-state actors in the south1.
- Peace as Stability or Imposition: The American vision of peace may mean stability for Israel and its allies, but could be perceived in Lebanon as an externally imposed order that disregards local realities and grievances4.
- Risk of Escalation: Failure to comply with U.S. and Israeli demands could lead to direct military intervention by Israel, as U.S. officials have warned1.
- Normalization Dilemma: While some regional actors have moved toward normalization with Israel under U.S. auspices, Lebanon’s unique sectarian and political landscape makes such a move highly contentious and fraught with risk.
- Internal Fragmentation: As with the Pax Romana, enforced peace from above may lead to deeper internal divisions, especially if significant segments of the population feel excluded or threatened by the new order2.
