Aoun must embrace the Oval Office challenge

While the Lebanon-Israel talks seem to be going smoothly, the status of the Oval Office invitation for Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains unclear. If it still stands, it would be too important to miss — the ultimate test of leadership, live before the world.

This is an offer one cannot refuse: a chance to present Lebanon’s case at the center of world power. The results would be immediate and could not be undone, but the risks cannot be underestimated.

Several world leaders have already encountered this phenomenon — call it reality show politics, unique to the Trump era. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting with Donald Trump and J.D. Vance was catastrophic: one minute he thought he had the upper hand, the next he had no idea what had hit him.

It is not all about substance. A deal that is on offer can be declined if handled correctly — it is a performance and it must be executed with the right attitude and body language. Both Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Jordan’s King Abdullah said no to what was on offer, yet their meetings went well regardless. Perhaps it was their royal instincts at play.

The meeting would be like walking across a minefield — but the worst outcome would be to miss it altogether

Nadim Shehadi

For Aoun, the stakes are high and so are the risks. Both Trump and Netanyahu are unpredictable; nothing could fully prepare him for what they might say. He would be conscious of his domestic audience and the broader Arab world, especially the Gulf states. The meeting would be like walking across a minefield — but the worst outcome would be to miss it altogether, forfeit global support and sink back into irrelevance. The opportunity may not come again.

Aoun has a strong message to deliver on Lebanon’s behalf and he is the right person to carry it — his own family is rooted in south Lebanon. The town of Bint Jbeil, which Israel is destroying, has a large diaspora in Michigan’s Arab community, a target constituency for Trump votes.

The challenge of dealing with Hezbollah is regional and international in scope and Lebanon cannot address it without outside collaboration and support. Its scope is from the shores of Latin America to the Strait of Hormuz. What Israel is doing in south Lebanon is certainly counterproductive and makes it more difficult for everybody.

Lebanon is not weak. Its society is strong and its model of coexistence between diverse communities is one the rest of the region should emulate. The state is weak when it comes to confronting Hezbollah militarily — but Gaza has shown there is no military solution. The Lebanese state is strong when it delivers sovereignty and security to its citizens, especially in the south. That is what the people of south Lebanon need: the protection of the state and the implementation of the Taif Agreement.

We are paying for past mistakes. One mistake was not following through to make the May 17 Agreement of 1983 between Israel and Lebanon a success. The three parties involved, Lebanon, Israel and the United States, are all responsible for that and the victims were the people of south Lebanon. Another mistake was that when Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000, it negotiated the withdrawal with Hezbollah and handed that part of the country to it and not to the Lebanese state.

Aoun can rise to these challenges with a concrete strategy: both states picking up where they left off and placing the May 17 Agreement back on the table as a point of departure.

It would be a Trump-style solution in the Trump era, bypassing bureaucracies and lengthy processes

Nadim Shehadi

We are no longer in 1983, obviously, but the messages from that agreement are important and still valid today. The main one is that we need to replace the 1949 armistice agreement, which was abrogated by Israel after the 1967 war. Also, the May 17 Agreement was not a peace treaty with normalization and exchange of diplomatic missions. But it specifically mentions that it was to end the state of war rather than achieve a mere ceasefire or “cessation of hostilities,” which is the maximum attainable under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 — the basis of the current negotiations.

The mention of May 17 as a framework automatically puts the end of the state of war as an aim of the negotiations and breaks the impasse in the application of UNSC Resolution 1701. Its main achievement would be the separation of the two tracks and this is very important. One track under May 17 would be between the states of Lebanon and Israel. The other track under the framework of the Taif Agreement would be between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah, asking the latter to join the state like the other militias.

This matters because progress on one track automatically reinforces the other, with the Lebanese state as the primary actor in both. Under the Nov. 27, 2024, agreement, by contrast, the Lebanese state was sidelined — acting merely as a mediator between the real players, Israel and Hezbollah.

Aoun, in the few minutes he will have, could address all the constituencies separately through these two points. Trump would be made aware of the link between Bint Jbeil and Michigan. Lebanon would still be adhering to the Arab Peace Initiative under Saudi leadership. Hezbollah could join the state without having to capitulate to Israel. Israel would withdraw according to security arrangements with the state and not with militias. Most importantly, the people of south Lebanon would have the promise of going back to their villages and rebuilding their lives.

All these messages can be delivered in one meeting at the Oval Office, in real time in front of the world, and the rest will be the details to be followed up in the negotiations. The alternative is going round in circles, with each track creating difficulties for the other. It would be a Trump-style solution in the Trump era, bypassing bureaucracies and lengthy processes — cutting to the chase and confronting problems directly.

In the end, Lebanon cannot afford to be silent. The Oval Office is the ultimate test — a stage where leaders either fly or burn. If Aoun has an argument, this is the moment to make it, live before the world. Better confrontation than stagnation, better risk than irrelevance. Lebanon must choose center stage or no stage at all.

• Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. X: @Confusezeus