Lebanon Seeks Turkey’s Help To Avoid Acting Against Hezbollah

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan asserted a strong interest in his neighbors’ affairs last month, declaring that, “Turkey’s security does not begin in Hatay [in southern Turkey], but rather in Aleppo, Damascus and Beirut.” The reference to Beirut was an implicit portrayal of Israeli action against Hezbollah in Lebanon as an eventual threat to Turkey.

Erdogan’s remarks preceded a July 10 meeting in Istanbul with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. The meeting reflected Ankara’s bid to influence Lebanon’s future and Beirut’s efforts to gain Turkish backing as it negotiates with Israel, giving it additional leverage in Washington.

Turkey’s Lebanese Frontline With Israel

Since October 7, Erdogan has firmly and openly supported Hamas and described Israel’s operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon as “genocidal.” Turkey has also sought to mediate the Israel-Hezbollah conflict but was rebuffed by both sides, with Beirut citing “concerns over expanding Turkish influence.”

Ankara has been frustrated at its exclusion from an arena it considers vital to its national security. Yet Turkey’s limited existing footprint and the fragmentation of the Lebanese Sunni population preclude Erdogan from building support within Lebanon.

The Istanbul meeting with the Lebanese premier gives Ankara its desired opening. Turkey can urge Lebanon, alongside powers like Saudi Arabia, to maintain a hardline, rejectionist posture toward Israel; backstop the state’s reluctance to confront Hezbollah; and preserve a permissive environment in Turkey and Lebanon that benefits the group. Although there is no evidence Ankara directly funds or arms Hezbollah, Israel accuses it of ignoring Hezbollah-bound funds transiting Turkey. In February 2025, Lebanese authorities reportedly seized $2.5 million allegedly destined for Hezbollah from a passenger arriving in Beirut from Turkey. Last November, U.S. Treasury Department Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John Hurley urged Turkey to cut off funds flowing to the group.

Erdogan Is Lebanon’s Trump Whisperer

Lebanese officials have pursued closer political and economic ties with Ankara, suggesting that they do not believe Turkey intends or currently possesses the capacity to replicate Iran’s model of sectarian proxy-building, despite some Lebanese commentators arguing that it could eventually do so.

Turkey is a NATO member with a powerful military and a substantial arms industry. More important for Beirut are improving U.S.-Turkish relations under President Donald Trump, built on Trump’s warm relationship with Erdogan. At the July 7 NATO summit in Ankara, Trump spoke affectionately of Erdogan and called Turkey “much more loyal” than traditional U.S. allies.

Meanwhile, on June 26, Lebanon signed a U.S.-sponsored framework agreement with Israel restating Beirut’s standing obligation to do what it has never been willing to do: confront Hezbollah. Lebanon fears this could trigger civil war because the group retains substantial Lebanese Shiite support. Admitting that unwillingness could cost U.S. aid and prompt renewed Israeli operations. Because of the Erdogan-Trump relationship and Turkey’s apparent preference for Hezbollah to serve as a counterweight to Israel, Lebanon likely believes Erdogan can intercede with Trump to dilute the agreement’s implementation. Beirut could thereby end Israeli operations and presence without paying the price required by the framework.

Washington Should Stay the Course on Lebanon

Notwithstanding closer Washington-Ankara ties, Turkey’s apparent position directly undermines U.S. policy in Lebanon. The United States, through the June 26 agreement, has made clear it seeks a permanent resolution to the Israel-Lebanon conflict by addressing its “underlying causes” — namely, Hezbollah’s arsenal and pathways to resurgence.

But Lebanon is already signaling an incipient backsliding on its commitments under the deal. Beirut is demanding Israeli withdrawal in advance of Lebanon merely discussing its corresponding obligations, thus reversing the agreed-upon sequencing. Lebanese officials, including Salam, have also downplayed the agreement’s significance, reframed their obligations under the deal, and minimized their disarmament commitments.

Allowing Hezbollah to survive as a military force and rearm undermines American interests in the region. The United States should therefore hold Lebanon to its commitments, impose proportionate consequences for noncompliance, and reject evasive Lebanese arguments advanced through Ankara.

David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) focused on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs. Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research analyst at FDD focused on Syria and Iranian intervention in Arab affairs and the Levant. For more analysis from the authors, please subscribe HERE. Follow FDD on X @FDD. Follow David on X @DavidADaoud. Follow Ahmad on X @AhmadA_Sharawi. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.