Since the establishment of the state, Lebanese territory has been occupied for 78 years by five different foreign armed forces. Whether these occupations were legitimate, beneficial or harmful, include domestic fighters, or received Lebanese government approval is a separate discussion.

These occupations all entail subordination of the Lebanese military-security apparatus to a foreign command and control structure, impeding the ability of the Lebanese state to exercise its full sovereign authority over its territory.

So why is Lebanon currently a (Syrio-Iranian) vassal state? Is it simply due to leaders selling their country to foreign bidders for cheap? Is Lebanon simply constantly surrounded by malevolent expansionist states?

The same phenomenon has repeated itself in different shapes and forms across cycles of history. The reasons Lebanon is a vassal state today are the same reasons the city-states were Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian vassal states over two thousand years ago. Understanding the core factors enables the provision of clarity on why history keeps repeating itself, and will help build consensus on executing the right lasting solutions.

The factors why Lebanon is a vassal state can be broken down into three main categories: the foundations for sovereignty, regional geopolitics, and identity politics.

In terms of foundations, a strong military-security apparatus, a healthy treasury, a stable social contract, and the engines of productivity are the foundations of all strong states.

When a country lacks self-reliance in any of these categories, it becomes dependent on foreign support, which can expose the state over time to losses of sovereignty in various areas, up to the point of becoming a vassal state.

In the military department, if a country finances its own army and manufactures its own technology, it will be self-reliant. Small countries often lack these financial and technological capabilities, placing them in a position of military clientele to foreign sponsors.

This doesn’t necessarily have to turn a country into a vassal state if the smaller country is able to balance its relations with multiple suppliers and find the right security framework.

Receiving technical advisory and military aid cannot be equated with having foreign boots on the ground. One is more detrimental to sovereignty then the other, though one can lead to the other overtime.

Financially, a country with a large tax base, healthy fiscal balances, and with the ability to raise debt cheaply and in its own currency – whether from domestic investors or international lenders – will enjoy greater financial sovereignty. A treasury that depends on bilateral or multilateral loans to stay afloat can over time transform a country into a vassal state.

The engines of productivity refer to the factors that generate the wealth of nations – infrastructure, technology, human capital, and natural resources. Countries that depend on foreign support for the engines of productivity risk becoming vulnerable to losing their sovereignty over time, as key strategic decisions become tied to foreign sponsors’ leverage over the economy.

A stable respected social contract enables internal equilibrium to remain between competing factions in a society. Internal dissent can be exploited by foreign powers seeking to support groups feeling marginalized.