At the heart of Lebanon’s ongoing political crisis lies a fundamental disconnect—the stark contrast between the sweeping transformations reshaping the Middle East and the stagnant, outdated approach to power-sharing in Lebanon. The well-publicized political and sectarian obstacles delaying the formation of the new government are merely symptoms of this deeper divide.

There is near-unanimous agreement among politicians, analysts, and observers that Lebanon has been propelled into a new political era by a powerful convergence of regional and international forces, along with an internal Lebanese will for change. This dynamic produced the leadership of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam. However, this momentum soon encountered resistance from Lebanon’s entrenched political system, which quickly reasserted its influence, dragging the process back into the familiar framework of sectarian quotas and power struggles.

To understand why this structural paralysis persists, it is essential to differentiate between the two key figures of the new leadership. President Aoun has so far shown a strong commitment to the principles outlined in his inaugural address—particularly power rotation in government and state control over all weapons. Meanwhile, Prime Minister-designate Salam has displayed more flexibility on these issues, leading to widespread criticism and opposition from within his own political camp, including members of the opposition, reformists, and independents.

This internal dissent is not merely about cabinet allocations; rather, it stems from the perceived double standards in Salam’s approach. His readiness to accept the conditions imposed by the Shiite duo—Hezbollah and Amal Movement—while maintaining a stricter stance toward other sectarian and political forces has sparked frustration, particularly among Sunni and Christian constituencies. This resentment surpasses the usual discontent that accompanies government formation and reflects a deeper crisis of credibility.

The initial mistake of the Prime Minister-designate was to break the principle of alternation by leaving the Ministry of Finance under the control of the Hezbollah-Amal duo, while failing to impose changes in some key appointments. Even his agreement with the same duo on the choice of a fifth minister was not enough to restore the balance.

While the choice of former minister Yassin Jaber for the Finance Ministry may not have triggered significant backlash, it did undermine Salam’s own commitment to upholding new standards in government formation. Additionally, a leaked medical report from the American University Hospital has raised concerns about Jaber’s health and his ability to manage such a critical portfolio during Lebanon’s financial recovery. This situation raises fears that key decisions will remain in the hands of his political backers and their entrenched networks within the ministry.

The real test for Hezbollah and Amal Nabih, particularly Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, is their accountability—not just to local political forces but also to Lebanon’s international donors. With global financial institutions closely monitoring Lebanon’s economic policies, and with American, European, and Arab stakeholders overseeing financial aid and loan programs, the Shiite duo will no longer have free rein over fiscal policy as they once did.

The international oversight accompanying Lebanon’s new government, especially concerning the Finance Ministry, is what compels many of Hezbollah and Amal’s opponents to tolerate the current arrangement. The era of unilateral financial decision-making is over, particularly as Lebanon—along with the broader Middle East—falls increasingly under the influence of American-led economic and diplomatic frameworks. Meanwhile, Iran’s ability to sustain its policy of defiance in Lebanon appears to be fading.

With the United States leading an international committee overseeing Lebanon’s ceasefire and agreement implementation—alongside recent diplomatic visits by U.S. envoys Morgan Ortagus and Eric Trager regarding the South and government formation—the reality is clear: Lebanon can no longer afford to resist international directives.

Should Prime Minister-designate Salam fail to form a government that reflects the region’s shift toward reform, breaks away from Lebanon’s legacy of corrupt governance, and prioritizes the needs of its citizens, the consequences will be severe. His missteps will not only damage his own political standing but will also weaken the presidency and deepen Lebanese disillusionment.

Avoiding failure requires recalibrating the government formation process to ensure true equity among all political actors—rooted in the principle of "justice for the people," rather than the divisive sectarianism that has long plagued Lebanon.

This is a historic moment—an opportunity for Lebanon’s leaders, political forces, and civil society to align the country with the region’s emerging pathway to stability, prosperity, and peace. The remnants of past conflicts are fading, and Lebanon must decide whether to seize this moment or remain trapped in its cycle of dysfunction.