Lebanon faces financial and economic challenges that are no less serious than its political and security crises. Among the key concerns is growing international pressure to dismantle the country’s illegal and informal economy, which operates both within and outside the formal financial system, particularly through what is commonly known as the “cash economy.”
US sanctions have increasingly targeted entities, companies, and individuals linked to Hezbollah and its financing networks, with the aim of cutting off funding channels in all their forms. This issue was also reportedly raised during Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Washington continues to closely monitor developments in Lebanon, paying particular attention to both economic and security matters. Against this backdrop, reports have emerged of a potential US initiative involving Lebanon’s economic future. But what does Washington have in mind, and under what conditions?
Speaking to MTV, political writer Monir Rabih said the United States is seeking to organize a dedicated economic conference for Lebanon, although the initiative remains conditional on implementing the economic reforms demanded by the international community and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
According to Rabih, Washington’s conditions would also be linked to the implementation of decisions taken by the Lebanese state. He added that comments by the US Treasury Secretary further connected the initiative to dismantling Hezbollah’s financial networks.
Rabih explained that these efforts are closely tied to the issue of weapons, alongside banking sector restructuring and financial reforms, which Washington considers essential to preventing Hezbollah from accessing financial channels. Only after these measures are addressed could the United States move forward with organizing an economic conference for Lebanon.
He further argued that Washington ultimately seeks to bring Lebanon toward security understandings and military coordination with Israel, followed by potential economic arrangements and, eventually, a peace agreement.
From this perspective, Rabih believes that any future economic projects or US-backed conference intended to support Lebanon would fall within Washington’s broader vision for an economic zone in southern Lebanon, potentially paving the way for joint economic agreements between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
This vision brings renewed attention to the proposed “Trump Economic Zone,” an initiative aimed at establishing an investment and economic development area across parts of southern Lebanon, extending from Naqoura to towns in the Marjayoun district.
The proposal seeks to transform southern border villages into hubs for economic activity, industrial development, services, and investment.
However, significant questions remain regarding the initiative’s objectives and implementation, particularly concerns over the potential permanent displacement of residents from border areas. These concerns have been heightened by Israel’s scorched-earth policy, which has reportedly resulted in the complete destruction of more than 60 villages.
Other unresolved issues include the proposed governance structure of the zone and whether its administration would involve a peacekeeping force or a replacement for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
While many details remain unclear, Washington’s position appears to place the dismantling of Hezbollah’s financial networks among its key conditions before any financial assistance to Lebanon can be discussed. This is accompanied by demands for disarmament and the exclusive control of weapons by the Lebanese state.
Under these conditions, discussions on potential US financial support for Lebanon would depend on progress in implementing the required security, financial, and economic measures.
