Excerpt:
History is not only written in treaties—it is written in whether those treaties survive political convenience. From Palestine to Lebanon, from Iran to international institutions, the recurring question is whether American guarantees constitute durable commitments or instruments of shifting strategic interests.
“He who seeks molasses from vinegar trees may wait forever.” The old Arabic proverb carries a simple lesson: hoping for sweetness from the wrong source often leads to disappointment.
In a thoughtful essay originally written in Arabic by Dr. Ali Ajami, that proverb becomes a metaphor for a much broader political question: Should governments continue placing their trust in American guarantees when history repeatedly demonstrates how fragile those guarantees can become?
Regardless of where one stands politically, the historical record deserves examination. Agreements are often celebrated with handshakes, ceremonies, and presidential endorsements. Yet many are later undermined by changing administrations, altered strategic priorities, or simple political expediency.
For countries such as Lebanon and Palestine—whose security frequently depends on outside guarantees—this question is not merely academic. It is existential.
A Pattern Beyond One Administration
International agreements are rarely self-enforcing. They depend upon the willingness of powerful states to honor both the letter and spirit of their commitments.
The United States has undeniably played a central diplomatic role in countless negotiations over the past several decades. It has also, under administrations of both major parties, withdrawn from or substantially altered commitments made by previous governments.
This is not unique to the United States—many great powers have done the same throughout history—but because Washington remains the world’s most influential diplomatic actor, its reversals carry global consequences.
The issue is therefore less about American intentions than about structural reality:
Can any guarantee remain reliable when domestic political transitions can completely reverse foreign policy?
Lebanon’s Repeated Experience
Lebanon offers several examples where ceasefire agreements or understandings were accompanied by American mediation or guarantees.
Among the examples highlighted by Dr. Ajami are:
- The November 27, 2024 ceasefire agreement intended to halt hostilities between Lebanon and Israel.
- The June 26, 2026 framework agreement intended to reduce military confrontation.
Supporters viewed these agreements as opportunities for stability.
Critics argue that Israeli military operations continued despite the understandings, raising questions about the practical effectiveness of American diplomatic guarantees.
Whether one attributes responsibility primarily to Israel, Washington’s inability or unwillingness to enforce compliance, or broader regional dynamics, the central observation remains:
A guarantee is only as meaningful as its enforcement.
Gaza and the Fragility of Diplomatic Promises
The October 9, 2025 Sharm el-Sheikh agreement regarding Gaza likewise illustrates this broader concern.
Announced with considerable international attention and reportedly backed personally by President Donald Trump, it promised an end to hostilities.
Yet continued violence led many observers to conclude that diplomatic guarantees alone cannot restrain military realities when enforcement mechanisms remain weak.
History repeatedly demonstrates that signed agreements often become aspirations rather than outcomes.
Oslo: The Agreement That Never Became a State
Perhaps no agreement better illustrates deferred promises than the Oslo Accords.
Signed in Washington in 1993 and expanded in 1995 under American sponsorship, Oslo envisioned Palestinian self-government as a transitional phase toward a negotiated two-state solution.
More than three decades later, many of Oslo’s central political objectives remain unrealized.
Settlement expansion continued.
Final-status negotiations stalled.
Successive American administrations adopted dramatically different approaches to the conflict.
Today, many analysts argue that the original vision underlying Oslo has effectively collapsed.
Whether one blames Israeli governments, Palestinian leadership, Washington, or all three, the historical outcome remains difficult to dispute:
The guarantees embedded within Oslo did not produce the political destination they promised.
Iran and the Limits of Diplomatic Continuity
Perhaps the clearest illustration of shifting American commitments is the Iranian nuclear agreement.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 after years of negotiation, represented one of the most significant diplomatic achievements in recent Middle Eastern history.
Three years later, the United States withdrew unilaterally under President Trump.
The agreement effectively unraveled thereafter.
Similarly, more recent understandings between Washington and Tehran have demonstrated how rapidly diplomatic frameworks can change with shifting political calculations.
For governments negotiating with Washington, this creates an unavoidable strategic dilemma:
Is an agreement with one administration truly an agreement with the United States as a permanent institution?
Sabra and Shatila: When Guarantees Failed Catastrophically
Among the most painful historical examples cited by Dr. Ajami is the 1982 evacuation of Palestinian fighters from Beirut.
American envoy Philip Habib helped broker the agreement.
Part of the understanding reportedly included assurances regarding civilian protection.
Less than one month after the evacuation, the Sabra and Shatila massacres occurred.
Thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed by Lebanese Forces militia while Israeli forces controlled the surrounding area.
Debate continues regarding political responsibility and legal accountability.
What remains uncontested is that the guarantees intended to reassure civilians ultimately failed to protect them.
For many across the region, this episode permanently altered perceptions of international security assurances.
Beyond Treaties: Retreat from International Institutions
Dr. Ajami also expands the discussion beyond regional conflicts.
In January 2026, the Trump administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations and treaties, arguing they no longer served American national interests. Those withdrawals included several U.N.-related entities focused on climate, migration, human rights, education, and global cooperation.
These decisions followed earlier withdrawals from agreements such as:
- UNESCO
- The UN Human Rights Council
- The Paris Climate Agreement
- The World Health Organization (during Trump’s first presidency before later policy reversals)
Each withdrawal reinforces a broader international perception:
American foreign policy can change dramatically every four years.
Trust Versus Verification
None of this necessarily means diplomacy is futile.
Nor does it suggest that negotiations should cease.
Diplomacy remains preferable to war.
Ceasefires remain preferable to escalation.
Agreements remain preferable to perpetual conflict.
However, history suggests an important distinction between signing agreements and depending upon guarantees.
Experienced diplomats often invoke Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase regarding arms control negotiations:
“Trust, but verify.”
In today’s Middle East, many governments appear to have modified that maxim even further:
“Verify first.”
Dearborn’s Perspective
Dearborn understands the consequences of broken promises perhaps better than most American cities.
Its residents include families shaped by wars in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere.
Many have lived through international agreements that promised peace yet failed to deliver security.
For them, skepticism toward diplomatic guarantees is not ideological.
It is historical memory.
Whether discussing ceasefires, refugee protections, occupation, or regional security, lasting peace ultimately depends not on signatures or ceremonies, but on accountability, enforcement, and equal application of international law.
Until those conditions exist, history suggests that guarantees alone remain insufficient.
And perhaps that is precisely the lesson embedded in Dr. Ali Ajami’s closing proverb:
Those who continue expecting certainty from guarantees that history repeatedly shows to be uncertain may simply be asking the wrong source for reassurance.
Sources
- Dr. Ali Ajami, original Arabic commentary (translated and adapted).
- The White House. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States. January 7, 2026.
- The White House. Presidential Memorandum on Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties. January 7, 2026.
- Background documentation on the Oslo Accords, the JCPOA, the 1982 Lebanon evacuation agreement, and publicly available historical records concerning subsequent events.
Disclaimer: This article is an analysis of historical agreements and publicly documented diplomatic developments. It incorporates translated material from an opinion piece by Dr. Ali Ajami alongside independently verifiable historical context. Readers are encouraged to consult primary source documents and multiple perspectives when evaluating complex international events.
Dearborn Blog 