1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. Trump’s Deal of the Century for Lebanon

Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not end wars; they only pause them. They make limited concessions to secure a ceasefire, only to exploit the fragile status quo to rearm and prepare for the next round. This is why they shun direct negotiations, whether between Lebanon and Israel or the U.S. and Iran, preferring instead to haggle over irrelevant details while buying time.

U.S. President Donald Trump operates on the opposite principle. The author of The Art of the Deal seeks decisive, comprehensive agreements that resolve conflicts once and for all. That is why, when Lebanese President Joseph Aoun visits Washington, he should be presented with a detailed Lebanon-Israel peace plan.

This Deal of the Century for Lebanon must include not only security arrangements but also concrete economic incentives: realistic projections of post-treaty foreign investment, a roster of committed international donors, and a clear roadmap for national revival.

Under this grand bargain, the U.S. would assist Lebanon in the full disarmament of Hezbollah. In return, Israel would return occupied territory and end its aerial policing of Lebanon. If Israel suspects any threat from Lebanon, its military would contact its Lebanese counterpart and resolve it jointly. Once the border is permanently demarcated and Israeli operations cease, Washington would oversee a transparent economic reconstruction program.

Lebanon’s revival must include the privatization of failing state monopolies, such as Electricité du Liban and regional water authorities. It should also attract investment to rebuild the country’s crumbling infrastructure, replacing dilapidated roads with a modern network and developing revenue-generating projects such as a world-class airport capable of handling tens of millions of passengers annually.

Peace with Israel would also restore lucrative direct flights between Lebanon and North America. This east–west air corridor, currently dominated by carriers from the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey, represents a significant economic prize that Lebanon has long forfeited.

Each of these elements—security, sovereignty, economic incentives, and infrastructure—must be packaged together as an all-or-nothing offer. Lebanon cannot be permitted to cherry-pick a lesser deal in which Israel halts its operations and returns land in exchange for a truce and mere promises of future Hezbollah disarmament and vague reforms. Such incremental approaches have been tried repeatedly and have always failed. Lebanon desperately needs a genuine grand bargain.

Clarity is essential because segments of Lebanon’s intellectual and political elite habitually channel Western anti-Israel ideology and Third World internationalism. They thrive on ambiguity, filling every gap with conspiracy theories, chief among them the claim that Israel seeks to annex southern Lebanon as part of a mythical “Greater Israel” stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile.

History offers a sobering precedent. When Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians a state on 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, along with land swaps to cover the remainder, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas refused to accept.

Instead, they accused Israel of bad faith and of harboring secret plans for ethnic cleansing. Both Israeli leaders, along with President Bill Clinton, later stated that the offers met nearly every Palestinian demand. The Palestinians lost their nerve at the final moment. They simply could not sign an agreement ending the conflict.

The lesson for Lebanon is clear: the details of any peace plan must be made fully public from the outset. Transparency places the burden of success or failure squarely on Beirut. If Israel approaches in good faith and America offers its full backing to restore Lebanese land, sovereignty, and past glory, only Lebanon’s refusal would explain continued conflict.

By extending such a Deal of the Century to Aoun, Trump would present him with a defining choice. Lebanon could accept the comprehensive package, paving the way for a historic handshake between Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Alternatively, Lebanon could reject the offer, making any future Israeli military action against Hezbollah—and the resulting Lebanese suffering—the responsibility of Beirut, rather than Washington or Jerusalem.

In sponsoring potential peace between Lebanon and Israel, clarity must be paramount. Whatever path Lebanon chooses, its people and leaders will bear the consequences. History will record that, like the Palestinians before them, the Lebanese were offered a chance to escape misery and build a prosperous, sovereign nation. If Lebanon lacks the courage to seize the opportunity, the responsibility for failure will rest on its shoulders.