A newly advanced U.S. vision for Syria and Lebanon frames them as “next pieces” in a regional peace architecture. But from a pro-Green-Party, pro-Palestine vantage, the plan falls short on sovereignty, justice and lasting remedy. We unpack the fault lines in Tom Barrack’s article and relate them to the values we champion at Dearborn Blog.
The region that stretches from Gaza through Lebanon, Syria and beyond is often treated as a geostrategic chessboard. In his recent commentary titled “Syria and Lebanon Are the Next Pieces for Levant Peace,” Tom Barrack argues that the October 13 summit in Sharm el‑Sheikh marks a “defining moment in modern Middle Eastern diplomacy,” and that the focus must now shift northward toward Syria and Lebanon.¹
From the vantage of this blog—committed to ecological justice, anti-imperialism and Palestinian self-determination—Barrack’s thesis presents an alluring vision of reconstruction, investment and inter-state cooperation. Yet it also carries deep structural flaws: assumptions of top-down peace building, sidelined justice, and renewed corporate access to conflict zones. Here’s why we believe his argument is wrong (or at least dangerously incomplete).
Framing the “Vision”
Barrack presents a narrative in which a bold twenty-point plan under Donald J. Trump offers an era of “purpose and optimism,” replacing decades of “fear and stagnation” through cooperation among Arab, Muslim and Western nations.¹ He sees the Gaza truce as the overture; Syria and Lebanon are the next movements.
While the rhetoric of hope is welcome, the methodology in his piece remains rooted in privilege: solutions are framed as something the U.S. and its regional partners deliver, rather than something these nations deeply shape themselves. The fundamental assumption is that peace can be engineered via economic unlocks, sanction relief, and strategic alignment—rather than emerging from justice, self-determination and grassroots rebuilding.
“Commerce is the bridge from conflict to coexistence.”¹
From a Green-Party oriented platform we ask: whose commerce? Who sets the rules? And does investment alone repair the moral and political wounds of occupation, war, displacement and inequality?
Syria: Sanctions, Sovereignty & Reconstruction
Barrack places great emphasis on lifting sanctions on Syria—chiefly the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act—arguing that they now punish “teachers, farmers, and shopkeepers” rather than the previous regime.² He describes Syria after December 8, 2024, as a new beast: one ready for integration, rebuilding, and border engagement.²
Certainly, sanctions have hurt civilians and rebuilding is vital. But the broader logic glosses over several core issues:
- Sovereignty vs. access. Lifting sanctions in order to open Syria to investment is not the same as enabling Syrians to decide how their society, economy and polity are reconstructed. Rebuilding must be rooted in social justice, local agency and ecological sustainability—not simply capital extraction.
- Selective justice. The focus remains on sanction relief and economic renewal, not on accountability. For a society riven by war, mass displacement and structural collapse, peace-building must include truth-telling, reparations, and restoration of civil society, not just infrastructure contracts.
- Peace through prosperity illusion. Investing in power grids and schools is necessary, yes—but without redressing the underlying power imbalances (the occupation of Palestinian lands, foreign intervention, local governance deficits), prosperity can become a fig leaf over the same old structural violence.
From our perspective: Syria deserves more than “a chance” given by foreign powers. It deserves the right to shape its own path, in dialogue with civil society and regional neighbours—not simply re-integrated on terms set in Washington or Riyadh.
Lebanon: Disarmament, Investment & Conditionality
Barrack’s treatment of Lebanon frames it as the “second frontier”—after Syria—for his proposed regional order.¹ He argues that disarming Hezbollah is both Israel’s security imperative and Lebanon’s opportunity.³ He warns that unilateral Israeli action could follow Lebanese delay.¹
From the Green and pro-Palestine angle this raises major alarms:
- Conditional reconstruction. Barrack proposes Gulf investment and aid flows to Lebanon, but only if Lebanon “reclaims the monopoly on legitimate force solely under the Lebanese Armed Forces.”³ This is a heavy conditionality: investment tied to military-political alignment rather than social justice, sustainable development or local empowerment.
- Militia = sovereignty issue oversimplification. Yes, Hezbollah’s arms and Iranian backing are contested issues. But the broader Lebanese system is also challenged by sectarian power structures, foreign interference (including U.S., Saudi and French), economic collapse and regional proxy warfare. Reducing the problem to a single militia misses the structural systemic crisis.
- Normalization without liberation. Tying Lebanese alignment with “anti-terrorist rhythm of its region,” as Barrack puts it, risks prioritizing Israeli and U.S. strategic desires over Lebanese civil society needs, Palestinian rights (via Lebanon’s large refugee presence) and genuine self-determination for Lebanese citizens.
From our perspective: any path toward Lebanese renewal must be anchored in justice for Lebanese and Palestinian citizens, ecological transition (for instance southern Lebanon’s environmental legacy), and independence from both Israeli aggression and foreign dominance—not just military disarmament.
The Iran Card & Proxy Narrative
Barrack labels Iran and its proxies the chief obstacle to regional rapprochement.¹ That characterization simplifies a far more complex web of historical intervention, resistance, and unintended consequences.
Key points to unpack:
- Iran’s influence in the region is partly a response to Western and Israeli military interventions, sanctions and regime-change operations.
- The narrative of “terror-proxy axis” can become a catch-all tool justifying foreign intervention, sanctions, and strategic bargains that bypass local democratic accountability.
- From a Green-Party, anti-imperial view, the cycle of sanction, war, proxy, reconstruction is a structural pattern: conflicts are created or deepened, then rebuilt on unequal terms. Barrack’s vision repeats that pattern—but repackaged as “prosperity.”
Economic Integration vs. Social Justice
One of the recurring themes in Barrack’s article is economic renewal and investment: infrastructure in Syria, reconstruction aid in Lebanon, regional partnerships.¹ That element might appeal to many—but from our vantage it’s insufficient and potentially counterproductive in isolation.
Considerations:
- Environment and sustainability. Reconstruction must follow ecological and climate-resilient paradigms. The Green movement emphasizes rebuilding in harmony with nature, not simply rebuilding what was. Syrian war zones, Lebanese coast, border areas: all have environmental scars that demand more than conventional infrastructure.
- Equity over growth. Investment that deepens inequality or benefits foreign corporations more than local communities is not peace-building—it’s extraction.
- Justice as foundation, not accessory. Economic interdependence may reduce conflict risk, but if underlying injustices remain (occupation, war crimes, displacement), then prosperity is fragile.
From our perspective: Peace is not built on trade deals alone, but on a foundation of human and ecological rights, genuine agency, and democratic accountability.
From Our Green-Party, Pro-Palestine Lens
At Dearborn Blog, we hold several guiding commitments: ecological sustainability, human rights, anti-colonialism, and solidarity with Palestine. How does Barrack’s vision stack up against those?
- Palestinian self-determination. Surprisingly little in Barrack’s piece addresses Palestinian sovereignty or justice directly. Gaza is referenced mainly as a starting point for regional cooperation. A vision that omits the core issue cannot legitimately claim to build peace.
- State sovereignty vs. external control. Barrack continuously treats Syria and Lebanon as pieces to a design, to be aligned, invested in, disarmed, reintegrated. From our perspective sovereignty is not the prize of conditional alignment—it’s a right inherent to peoples and states.
- Green justice. The focus on investment and reconstruction is useful but must be reframed: ecological transition, local ownership, reparations for war damage and infrastructural collapse, water and energy justice. The model presented by Barrack lacks the ecological lens we find central.
- Democracy and accountability. Disarmament, investment and alignment are offered as strategic steps. But where is the role of civil society, of inclusive governance, of reparative justice for the many communities (including Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Kurds in Syria) that have been excluded?
Why We Say the Article Is Wrong — But Not Without Value
Let’s be clear: there are kernels of value in Barrack’s article. Lifting of sanctions on Syria, reconstruction emphasis, regional diplomatic momentum—they’re not inherently bad. But they’re incomplete. When we call his piece “wrong,” we mean it fails to address systemic justice, agency and ecology.
Summary of the core problems:
- It frames peace as top-down strategic alignment rather than bottom-up justice and sovereignty.
- It emphasizes investment and reconstruction without sufficient accountability, ecological or social justice frameworks.
- It treats Lebanon and Syria as pieces in a broader U.S. strategic mosaic rather than fully sovereign actors.
- It sidelines the Palestinian core and reduces peaceful possibility to economic and strategic alignment rather than rights and equity.
What Would a Dearborn Blog-Ally Approach Look Like?
If we were crafting an alternative blueprint aligned with our values, it might include:
- A central role for Palestinian rights as the axis of regional peace, not a backdrop to other deals.
- Reconstruction efforts rooted in local leadership, ecological design, reparations and democratic participation.
- Disarmament and state renewal framed not simply in security-terms but as part of civil society rebuilding, inclusive governance, refugee return rights and social justice.
- Regional economic integration that privileges sustainability, worker rights, equitable access, not just foreign capital and corporate contracts.
- A break from the cycle of sanction → war → proxy → reconstruction by centering local sovereignty, ecological transition and accountability.
Final Thoughts
Tom Barrack’s article paints a shimmering horizon: “cooperation,” “shared prosperity,” “regional renewal.”¹ It evokes hope. Yet hope without foundation is brittle. What’s missing is the deep, often uncomfortable labor of justice, democracy and ecological transformation.
From Dearborn Blog’s perspective: the world needs more than architecture of peace—it needs the politics of it: power rebalanced, communities empowered, nature respected. If Syria and Lebanon are truly to be “next pieces” in the Levant’s future, they must be pieces of their own making, not pieces for someone else’s plan.
“A Syria or Lebanon that kneels before Washington’s ‘prosperity plan’ is not reborn — it is re‐colonized.”
We welcome renewed diplomacy, investment and dialogue—but not at the cost of self-determination, ecological justice and Palestinian liberation. Regional peace that sidelines the oppressed or privileges the powerful is not peace; it’s the next iteration of the old order.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article reflect the editorial position of Dearborn Blog and its commitment to ecological justice, human rights and self-determination. They do not constitute legal or financial advice. Dearborn Blog does not accept liability for the outcomes of actions based on this article.
Sources:
- “Syria and Lebanon are ‘next pieces’ in push for Middle East peace, US envoy says,” The National, Oct. 20, 2025. The National
- “Barrack: Syria is the missing piece of peace in the Middle East,” Enab Baladi, Oct. 20, 2025. Enab Baladi
- “US special envoy calls on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah,” Caliber.az, Oct. 20, 2025. Caliber.Az
- “Repealing Syria sanctions is the missing piece of peace – US envoy,” North Press Agency, Oct. 20, 2025. npasyria.com
- “Syria, Lebanon key to next phase of Middle East peace, says US Ambassador Tom Barrack,” The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 20, 2025. Jerusalem Post
- Original commentary: “A Personal Perspective – Syria and Lebanon Are the Next Pieces for Levant Peace” by Ambassador Tom Barrack, Oct. 13, 2025. X (formerly Twitter)+1
Dearborn Blog 