Your article evoked memories of a hauntingly similar chapter from around 40 years ago: the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). What began as internal protests and ethnoreligious strife quickly spiralled into a proxy battleground for regional and global powers. Regional actors intervened for their interests, and then the superpowers sought their share of influence. What followed was a brutal quagmire of militia-on-militia and militia-on-military violence, with certain moments, like Sabra and Shatila, seared vividly and permanently into our collective memory.
The Syrians entered Lebanon under the pretence of stabilisation but stayed long after Israel’s withdrawal, cementing their presence until they were eventually forced out (2005). Decades later, the scars of that conflict remain deeply etched into Lebanon's fabric, visible even today.
It seems almost poetic, if not ironic, that history appears to be replaying itself—this time targeting one of the key players of that dark period. The forces orchestrating so much strife in Lebanon are now engulfed by similar chaos. Perhaps it is history’s irony or karma’s retribution that the architects of those skirmishes and the instigators of violence have tasted the turmoil they once imposed on others, leading to the ultimate downfall of the (former) regime.
Yes there are certainly similar trends running through both the Lebanese and Syrian Civil Wars. Both also contributed to the formation of Iran’s land bridge to the Mediterranean that arose in the chaos, which now seems massively under threat after the damage of the past year on Hezbollah, and the collapse of Assad in Syria.
If history is indeed repeating itself, I question the future status of Syria. Will we see other geopolitical actors overstay in Syria, just as Syria did in Lebanon?
An excellent summary, as always—brilliantly done!
Your article evoked memories of a hauntingly similar chapter from around 40 years ago: the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). What began as internal protests and ethnoreligious strife quickly spiralled into a proxy battleground for regional and global powers. Regional actors intervened for their interests, and then the superpowers sought their share of influence. What followed was a brutal quagmire of militia-on-militia and militia-on-military violence, with certain moments, like Sabra and Shatila, seared vividly and permanently into our collective memory.
The Syrians entered Lebanon under the pretence of stabilisation but stayed long after Israel’s withdrawal, cementing their presence until they were eventually forced out (2005). Decades later, the scars of that conflict remain deeply etched into Lebanon's fabric, visible even today.
It seems almost poetic, if not ironic, that history appears to be replaying itself—this time targeting one of the key players of that dark period. The forces orchestrating so much strife in Lebanon are now engulfed by similar chaos. Perhaps it is history’s irony or karma’s retribution that the architects of those skirmishes and the instigators of violence have tasted the turmoil they once imposed on others, leading to the ultimate downfall of the (former) regime.
Thank you!
Yes there are certainly similar trends running through both the Lebanese and Syrian Civil Wars. Both also contributed to the formation of Iran’s land bridge to the Mediterranean that arose in the chaos, which now seems massively under threat after the damage of the past year on Hezbollah, and the collapse of Assad in Syria.
If history is indeed repeating itself, I question the future status of Syria. Will we see other geopolitical actors overstay in Syria, just as Syria did in Lebanon?