On Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Sheikh Bahaa Rafic Hariri participated as a guest of honor in a special roundtable organized by the “Middle East Association” in the British capital, London, under the title: “Lebanon and the Region: Past, Present, and Future.” The session featured a distinguished group of researchers, diplomats, and experts in Middle Eastern affairs and international relations.

The event provided an opportunity to highlight Lebanon’s role as a regional financial and cultural center, as well as to examine the civilizational dynamics of the Levant and the future of UK-Lebanon relations—especially in financial and economic dimensions.

In a notable speech, Sheikh Bahaa Hariri called for adopting the principle of “Flexible Strategic Sovereignty” as a framework to address the existential challenges facing the countries of the region, particularly Lebanon. He stressed that this approach empowers nations to regain the ability to make independent decisions amidst a turbulent regional and global environment.

In his speech, Sheikh Bahaa Hariri said:

“Across the Middle East, the fabric of sovereignty is under extraordinary pressure and undergoing rapid changes, and this is clearly evident in Lebanon. From Beirut to Damascus and Baghdad, the region stands at a crossroads, where questions of statehood, legitimacy, and resilience are no longer theoretical—they are existential.

At this forum, where we discuss topics such as investment regulation, energy security, and the shaping of geopolitical structures, I propose adopting flexible strategic sovereignty as a guiding principle—a way of thinking and acting that enhances national capacity for independent action within interdependence, and restores institutional integrity despite fragmentation.

Lebanon offers both a cautionary tale and a unique strategic vision through which this principle can be tested.”

He continued:

“Let me start with investment and economic governance.

The financial collapse in Lebanon—among the most severe in the world since the 19th century—is not merely an economic malfunction, but rather a failure of governance. It was facilitated by systematic corruption that enabled Hezbollah and other affiliated non-state actors to thrive.

Years of uncontrolled capital flows, political paralysis, informal patronage networks, and governmental corruption led to the emergence of a structure where foreign aid, remittances, and banking secrecy replaced productive investment and strategic planning.

The result: a hollowed-out Lebanese state, dependent on external goodwill and vulnerable to every geopolitical wind.

Here, flexible strategic sovereignty demands more than reform—it requires a redesign of the investment framework, rooted in transparent public finances, judicial recovery, and sectoral priorities such as energy, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure.

Lebanon must develop mechanisms to screen and monitor strategic investments—especially in post-port reconstruction, telecommunications infrastructure, and gas exploration. These areas are essential for energy security in the Eastern Mediterranean, including the development of gas resources in Turkey and Cyprus, a member of the EU and the Commonwealth.”

On energy security, he stated:

“Energy security is no longer a mere ambition for Lebanon; it is a potential cornerstone for recovery.

The recent maritime agreement defining the southern gas block boundaries presents an opportunity—not only to extract resources but also to reaffirm sovereign control over national assets.

However, this must not become a new theater for proxy competition.

The management of Lebanon’s maritime wealth must be protected by transparent, law-abiding government institutions, integrated into a long-term sovereign wealth framework—shielded from internal corruption and external influence.

Lebanon—if properly guided—can shift from weakness to strategic relevance in the Eastern Mediterranean’s energy landscape, security, and sustainable development.”

On the regional context:

“Lebanon’s sovereignty is deeply entangled in broader regional alliances and rivalries.

Iranian influence is entrenched through Hezbollah’s military and political role; Western aid is conditional on reform; support from Gulf states has declined due to structural dysfunction; and historical relations with Syria remain unstable.

No serious discussion of regional stability can ignore Lebanon’s predicament.

Nevertheless, amidst these entanglements, Lebanon remains a pluralistic society with historical traditions in diplomacy, education, high culture, and vibrant interfaith coexistence. These are assets—not burdens. But they require a functioning state—one capable of managing foreign relations without being consumed by them.

For this reason, regional governments must treat Lebanon not as a failed arena to be managed, but as a partner in regional balance. Likewise, the international community must move from emergency relief to supporting institution-building—especially judicial reform, central bank independence, and revitalizing the civil service.”

He added:

“Lebanon intersects with broader regional issues such as the restructuring of Syria, efforts to rebalance Iraq, existential challenges in Iran, Turkey’s stability, and Israel’s expansionist realignment. It is a microcosm of Middle Eastern sovereignty under pressure, and a potential location for a post–Sykes-Picot reimagination.

Flexible strategic sovereignty in Lebanon and the region means:
• Investing in institutions before individuals
• Designing economic policies aimed at long-term autonomy, not short-term currency stabilization
• Building energy partnerships that empower states, not proxies
• Crafting regional diplomacy that doesn’t require weak nations to pick sides in losing bets”

On regional cooperation:

“A broad strategic vision is emerging for the Fertile Crescent in the Near East, as a union of the Levant and Mesopotamia that could stand strategically as a regional partner with Europe, with Turkey, and beyond in the Middle East—with British guidance—and with Lebanon as its cultural catalyst.

A shared free-trade market linking Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon alone would yield a combined GDP of 350 billion USD and a total population of 85 million—excluding the diaspora.”

He concluded:

“Let me conclude with this:

Sovereignty today is not what it was in the mid-20th century. It is no longer defined solely by control over territory, but by the capacity to govern effectively, to engage in selective partnerships, and to absorb external pressures without internal collapse.

In light of the recent escalation in armed conflict between Israel and Iran, the Near East is undergoing rapid geopolitical transformations that require a proper restructuring of Lebanon’s political system in accordance with the principles of the Taif Agreement.

Let this forum be the turning point we need.
Let us work not only for stability, but for sovereignty with dignity, resilience with vision, and governance with purpose.”