Tom Barrack, the US special envoy to Syria and ambassador to Turkey, is scheduled to arrive in Beirut on June 18. As a US official of Lebanese origin, Barrack carries with him more than just diplomatic credentials; his heritage and personal ties give him a nuanced understanding of Lebanon’s labyrinthine political landscape.

Yet, his visit comes at one of Lebanon’s most combustible moments in recent memory, where long-standing dysfunction meets escalating regional conflict.

Barrack’s arrival was planned weeks ago, before open hostilities erupted between Israel and Iran, but now the stakes have shifted dramatically. Lebanese skies were recently breached by low-flying Israeli drones over Beirut, a stark symbol of how close Lebanon remains to the frontlines of a regional war. For Barrack, this means walking into a fraught political and security environment where diplomacy faces steep challenges.

Barrack’s Lebanese roots could be both an asset and a liability. His personal connection to Lebanon offers him a deeper grasp of the sectarian complexities, historical grievances and local nuances that have long confounded foreign diplomats. Yet Lebanon’s political class is notorious for its skilled manipulation of foreign actors, using their good intentions to fortify entrenched power structures rather than pursue genuine reform.

Lebanon’s political system is deeply sectarian, with power shared along religious lines in a confessional model designed decades ago under French colonial rule. This system has morphed into a rigid web of patronage and factionalism, where external backers including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Western powers all wield influence. Hezbollah, backed by Tehran, remains a dominant force, while political leaders often prioritise survival over the nation’s well-being.

Barrack’s arrival follows weeks of political shifts sparked by the rumoured sidelining of Morgan Ortagus, the hawkish US Deputy Special Envoy to the Middle East. Lebanon’s political scene has shifted back towards familiar rhythms. Ortagus’ hard-line stance rattled the Lebanese establishment; she was known for bluntly calling Hezbollah a “cancer” and for tying US assistance to measurable reforms. Her approach included strict deadlines, hard expectations and public rebukes, an anomaly in the region’s often ambiguous diplomatic choreography.

A telling reaction came from Nabih Berri, Lebanon’s Parliament speaker since 1992, with over three decades of near-continuous power and one of the country’s most durable political figures, Berri openly welcomed Ortagus’ exit, calling it “pleasing to the heart.”

The statement, and the article that quoted it, titled “Ortagus departure: Bad news for Israel, good news for Berri”, highlighted how deeply her presence had unsettled Lebanon’s ruling class. Israeli officials reportedly viewed her removal as a blow to efforts aimed at confronting Hezbollah, which Ortagus had aggressively targeted.

Berri’s response was not just a personal jab; it reflected the broader anxiety Ortagus had sparked among elites who now see her departure as an opportunity to return to familiar patterns of resistance and delay.

The question now is whether Barrack will carry forward that momentum, or be drawn into the familiar pageantry that so often defines foreign visits to Beirut.

• Ortagus’ legacy

Tom Barrack steps into a delicate moment, following a period when Morgan Ortagus’ tough rhetoric and insistence on accountability unsettled Lebanon’s entrenched political class. Ortagus, appointed as the US Deputy Special Envoy for the Middle East, made a significant impact during her tenure, not just through her words, but through the pressure she applied with deliberate structure and intent.

Unlike many of recent predecessors, Ortagus did not rely on quiet diplomacy or symbolic statements. She issued clear deadlines for reform, threatened to suspend US aid and insisted on measurable benchmarks before any progress could be claimed. Her message was unmistakable: US engagement would no longer serve as diplomatic cover for Lebanon’s stalemates and dysfunction. You either moved forward, or faced real consequences.

In her widely-noted visit to Baabda Palace in February 2025, Ortagus did not mince words. She publicly declared that Hezbollah had been militarily defeated by Israel and that its participation in the Lebanese government would no longer be tolerated. “The end of Hezbollah’s reign of terror in Lebanon and around the world has started, and it’s over,” she said. Her remarks triggered a swift backlash. President Joseph Aoun’s office quickly distanced itself from her comments, and Hezbollah supporters staged loud protests outside Beirut airport.

Yet behind the optics, the impact was real. Lebanese politicians, long used to rhetorical gymnastics and diplomatic ambiguity, were rattled. Ortagus created a framework in which continued US engagement was conditional, not guaranteed. Her tenure raised the cost of inaction.

Now, with her rumoured sidelining, some in Beirut see an opening to return to the old rhythm: make vague promises, stage political meetings and ride out the foreign pressure cycle. Barrack must now decide whether he can maintain this momentum, translating hard talk into concrete reforms, or whether Lebanon’s elites will exploit the transition to ease pressure and revert to business as usual.

• “Political theatre”

Lebanese politicians have already shifted to familiar modes of “political theatre” in the wake of Ortagus’ departure. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, once vocally opposed to Hezbollah’s arms and Iranian influence, has toned down his rhetoric and engaged in carefully-scripted meetings with key figures including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Hezbollah’s Mohammad Raad. These meetings now emphasise unity and dialogue but lack concrete outcomes.

Barrack’s challenge will be to avoid becoming yet another diplomat exploited for political cover. If anything, he would do well to study Ortagus’ tenure: her unapologetic clarity, her setting of deadlines, and her insistence on substance over symbolism. Whether the US is willing to stand by such an approach remains uncertain.

The question is whether Barrack can break through this cycle of performative politics. As a Lebanese-American with diplomatic heft, he might have better chances of navigating the nuances, but the entrenched elites have long proven adept at using such visits to project an illusion of progress while preserving their privileges.

Adding to the complexity is the ongoing Iran-Israel war that threatens to drag Lebanon into open conflict. Unlike previous years, this escalation feels less like a distant proxy war and more like direct confrontation. Hezbollah’s close ties to Tehran mean Lebanon could quickly become a battleground if the conflict intensifies. The low-altitude Israeli drone flight over Beirut on June 16 was a clear signal that Lebanon remains on high alert.

In this volatile environment, what message can Barrack realistically bring? His arrival coincides with a security situation that overshadows diplomatic efforts and with a political system resistant to change. His role will require balancing delicate negotiations with the harsh realities on the ground.

Lebanon’s economy, already in free-fall for years, had pinned hopes on the summer tourism season as a potential lifeline. Gulf tourists, seen as a vital source of revenue, were booking trips in increasing numbers just weeks ago, sparking cautious optimism across the hospitality sector.

But the outbreak of regional hostilities has abruptly ended these hopes. Closed air spaces, cancelled flights, and growing security fears have led to a cascade of booking cancellations. Pierre Achkar, President of the Lebanese Hotel Association, warned that war is the enemy of tourism, and the current conflict threatens to wipe out what was poised to be a critical summer season for Lebanon.

This economic setback exposes Lebanon’s deeper vulnerability: an economy dependent on short-term fixes amid political paralysis. Without reforms to tackle corruption, stabilise governance and build institutions, Lebanon’s chances of meaningful recovery remain slim.

Barrack arrives not only to face Lebanon’s political gridlock but to confront a society increasingly alienated by economic hardship and regional instability. Whether his visit can translate into tangible progress, or simply becomes another page in Lebanon’s ongoing saga of stalled reform, remains uncertain.

Lebanon’s story is one of repeated cycles, periods of hope raised by foreign visits and diplomatic pressure, followed by inevitable relapse into entrenched dysfunction. The sidelining of Morgan Ortagus and the arrival of Tom Barrack embody this oscillation between hawkish pressure and cautious optimism.

Barrack’s unique background and diplomatic standing offer promise, but without sustained American will to enforce consequences and without genuine Lebanese commitment to change, the visit risks becoming another momentary spotlight in a long shadow of political inertia.

For ordinary Lebanese, caught between the ambitions of external powers and the survival tactics of their leaders, these diplomatic rituals provide little reassurance. The country continues to drift closer to fracture, its economy in ruins, its institutions weak and its people increasingly disillusioned.

Tom Barrack’s arrival on June 18 brings with it a fragile hope, that perhaps this time, diplomacy can make a difference. But that hope must contend with the harsh reality of Lebanon’s enduring political fault lines and the turbulent regional storm gathering on its borders.