Destruction from Two Wars Strains the Lebanese State

A man points at a building damaged by Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon, March 28, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. REUTERS/Stringer
A man points at a building damaged by Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon, March 28, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. REUTERS/Stringer
TT

Destruction from Two Wars Strains the Lebanese State

A man points at a building damaged by Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon, March 28, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. REUTERS/Stringer
A man points at a building damaged by Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon, March 28, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. REUTERS/Stringer

A pattern of systematic destruction pursued by Israel in the current war is becoming clearer by the day, extending in both context and objectives from the previous conflict and pushing entire Lebanese regions and governorates toward a “scorched earth” reality. The scale and nature of the targeting no longer suggest localized operations or limited military objectives.

Israeli operations are no longer confined to destroying sites, depots, and warehouses belonging to Hezbollah. They now extend to targeting entire built-up areas and residential neighborhoods, hindering the return of residents and prolonging displacement. This serves as a pressure tactic against Hezbollah’s support base on the one hand, and against the Lebanese state and its institutions on the other.

Lebanon was already unable to secure the resources needed for reconstruction after the previous war, making the task today even more difficult amid the massive and accumulating losses of the current conflict. The outlook is further darkened by the absence of any serious indications of external funding sources for recovery and reconstruction, as most countries that traditionally provided support are preoccupied with their own domestic conditions and major crises resulting from the ongoing war in the region. This makes it likely that Lebanon will be left to face its fate alone, burdened with costs far beyond its capacity- unless those concerned succeed in including a reconstruction funding clause in any potential ceasefire agreement.

Israeli Destruction Strategy

Former Lebanese minister Nasser Yassin points to a “strong similarity in the destruction strategy adopted by Israel between the previous war and the current one, particularly in terms of targeting buildings and facilities it claims belong to Hezbollah.” He notes that “the target bank often appears to be the same, with buildings struck in the previous war being targeted again.”

He adds that “what differs from the 2023–2024 war is the deliberate targeting of bridges to sever areas south of the Litani River and to pressure the Lebanese state,” adding: “Targeting official facilities may be partly linked to military plans and partly intended to pressure the state. This is a dangerous indicator that will impose high costs and cause additional direct losses amounting to billions of dollars.”

Yassin told Asharq Al-Awsat that “what Lebanon obtained after the previous war was a $250 million loan from the World Bank, in addition to $50 million allocated in the public budget- amounts that fall far short of the funding required for reconstruction.”

He adds that “this reality will worsen after the current war, as state revenues are insufficient. Gulf countries that typically contributed to reconstruction are now part of the war and are facing daily attacks from Iran, while major economic activity has been disrupted, shifting their focus more toward internal affairs. This is in addition to a political environment that may not be conducive to funding reconstruction, as successive governments have not demonstrated seriousness in implementing reforms.”

He adds: “Western countries also face their own challenges due to the repercussions of the Russia-Ukraine war and inflation driven by the regional conflict.”

Civil defense personnel at a site targeted by Israeli shelling in the Saksakieh area of ​​southern Lebanon (EPA)

Preliminary Estimates of the Scale of Destruction

The continuation of the war makes it difficult to assess the full extent of newly inflicted damage less than a month after its onset. However, research Specialist at Information International Mohammad Chamseddine points to an initial picture indicating the destruction of “4,500 units in the south and 1,600 units in Beirut’s southern suburbs completely, in addition to various levels of damage to 12,000 units.” He notes that “what distinguishes the current Israeli approach from the previous war is that it is more intense and the scale of destruction is greater.”

According to Chamseddine , the number of housing units that sustained minor or moderate damage in the previous war reached 317,000, while 51,000 units were completely destroyed, including 9,000 in the southern suburbs, 1,500 in the Bekaa, and 22,000 in the border strip area.

The World Bank previously estimated that the direct cost of the last Israeli offensive on Lebanon reached approximately $14 billion, noting the destruction and damage of more than 100,000 housing units, in addition to severe damage to infrastructure and public facilities.



Arms Depots in Residential Areas Keep Libyans on Edge

Remnants of ammunition after a weapons depot explosion in Misrata, western Libya, on Friday (Criminal Investigation Department)
Remnants of ammunition after a weapons depot explosion in Misrata, western Libya, on Friday (Criminal Investigation Department)
TT

Arms Depots in Residential Areas Keep Libyans on Edge

Remnants of ammunition after a weapons depot explosion in Misrata, western Libya, on Friday (Criminal Investigation Department)
Remnants of ammunition after a weapons depot explosion in Misrata, western Libya, on Friday (Criminal Investigation Department)

An explosion at a warehouse belonging to an armed group in the northwestern Libyan city of Misrata has revived fears over munitions stored among civilians despite an earlier order to remove such facilities from populated areas.

Weapons and ammunition depots inside residential areas have become a persistent challenge for Libya’s Government of National Unity (GNA) in the west and a growing concern for residents.

Friday’s blast in the Gharian area underscored the risks posed by ammunition depots run by armed groups inside residential neighborhoods. Residents have renewed calls for the facilities to be moved away from populated areas, fearing a repeat of earlier explosions that caused casualties and sparked widespread anger.

Ammunition found on Friday at the site of a weapons depot explosion in Misrata, western Libya (Criminal Investigation Department)

Salem Krawad, a Misrata notable, said public anger had “reached its peak because of the proliferation of weapons without decisive government action.”

“The danger is not limited to warehouses. It extends to homes containing shells, ammunition boxes, and light arms, raising fear among residents,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Medical sources said the explosion at a warehouse belonging to an armed group calling itself the “Hurricane Brigade” caused injuries and panic after rockets and ammunition flew into the surrounding area, raising fears of further blasts.

By early Saturday, the operations room of the government-run Libyan Mine Action Center was still receiving reports from residents of intermittent ammunition explosions, a center source said.

The depots in the city were large and held various types of ammunition, the source added.

GNA Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah had not commented on the incident. He was visiting Misrata, where he toured a power station and attended a sports festival.

The head of the Government of National Unity attended a sports festival in Misrata but did not comment on the explosion (Dbeibeh's Office)

Interior Minister Emad al-Trabelsi ordered security agencies to survey and comb the areas around the blast site and remove remnants.

Local sources ruled out a deliberate attack as the cause of the explosion in Misrata. But the incident recalled a similar blast in August last year in the city’s al-Sukairat area that injured 16 residents.

That explosion sparked protests in Misrata, with residents demanding the removal of weapons and ammunition depots from residential areas.

Abdul Salam al-Zoubi, undersecretary at the Defense Ministry for regions and military affairs, then ordered the formation of a committee to identify alternative storage sites and clear existing depots from populated areas.

But the decision was never implemented, Krawad said, questioning why the depots remained in residential districts despite repeated calls to remove them.

Their continued presence “represents a latent danger threatening civilian lives and means an explosion could occur at any time,” he said.

Libya has faced widespread proliferation of weapons and ammunition since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s government in 2011, with military depots located near population centers. UN reports estimate there are about 20 million arms in the country, highlighting the scale of the challenge.

A member of the Military Engineering Department in Tripoli defuses a mine in the Al-Aqrabiyah area near a residential neighborhood (General Staff of the Government of National Unity Forces)

The danger goes beyond warehouse explosions. Official figures show that mines and explosive ordnance have caused 487 casualties since May 2020, including 175 deaths and 312 injuries. Eighty-seven of the victims were children.

Representatives of 10 countries and international partners to Libya warned at a meeting in Rome in May about unsafe ammunition storage, particularly depots near residential areas, saying they posed a continuing threat to civilians.

Despite the warnings, ammunition depots remain scattered through residential areas across Libya, according to the Libyan Mine Action Center. The risks increase in the south as temperatures rise, potentially raising the chances of improperly stored ammunition exploding.

Khaled Jibril, spokesperson for the Libyan Mine Action Center, renewed warnings that unsafe storage of ammunition and explosive remnants of war, especially near residential neighborhoods, posed a constant threat to civilians because explosions and other incidents could occur without warning.

Jibril told Asharq Al-Awsat that protecting civilians and reducing risks posed by ammunition and remnants of war required cooperation among the relevant authorities, with public safety prioritized and practical steps taken to stop haphazard storage and to move sources of danger away from populated areas.

The ongoing risks pose a challenge far beyond Misrata in a country still divided between two governments: The Tripoli-based GNA, headed by Dbeibah, and a parliament-appointed government, headed by Osama Hammad, that administers eastern Libya and southern cities.


Exceptional School Year: South Lebanon Families Weigh Options Amid War Fears

A member of the Red Cross provides learning activities to children inside a tent at Camille Chamoun Sports City stadium turned into a temporary shelter in Beirut, Lebanon, May 8, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
A member of the Red Cross provides learning activities to children inside a tent at Camille Chamoun Sports City stadium turned into a temporary shelter in Beirut, Lebanon, May 8, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
TT

Exceptional School Year: South Lebanon Families Weigh Options Amid War Fears

A member of the Red Cross provides learning activities to children inside a tent at Camille Chamoun Sports City stadium turned into a temporary shelter in Beirut, Lebanon, May 8, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
A member of the Red Cross provides learning activities to children inside a tent at Camille Chamoun Sports City stadium turned into a temporary shelter in Beirut, Lebanon, May 8, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

For many families in southern Lebanon, choosing a school is no longer a decision made months in advance.

With September approaching, parents are still weighing where to enroll their children, watching the security situation and recalling the upheaval of the past two years, when thousands of students were kept out of classrooms, families were displaced and schools shifted from in-person to remote learning.

The uncertainty has produced starkly different choices. Some families are enrolling children in schools in the areas where they were displaced.

Others are opting for lower-cost public schools in case classrooms are forced to close again. Some are seeking schools in safer areas that stayed open during the previous war.

A displaced woman with children sits outside a school-turned-shelter, following an escalation between Hezbollah and Israel amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Beirut, Lebanon, March 3, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Normally, most Lebanese schools, particularly private ones, complete enrollment by the end of the previous academic year, allowing the new school year to begin with student lists already finalized.

This year, some schools are keeping registration open through the first two weeks of September as parents hesitate over where to send their children.

“I enrolled my children, but I still haven’t bought their books,” said Abeer, a mother of three.

“Every day I look at the book lists and wonder: Should I wait, or pay for them and have the same thing happen as in the past two years? I’ll wait until mid-September before deciding.”

For Maryam, safety means keeping school close to home.

“My son is in first grade. I enrolled him in the public school near us in the village,” she said. “That way, if anything happens, I can pick him up quickly and flee at any moment.”

Parents from border areas who do not expect to return home soon are among those searching for schools where they have been displaced.

Others are turning to public schools, known for their lower fees, wary of paying high tuition only for schools to close again.

Some families are taking another approach: looking for schools in safer areas that managed to keep classrooms open during the previous war.

For parents reluctant to repeat the experience of remote learning, that has become a key condition.

“We decided to stay in the area where we were displaced,” said Um Ahmad. “So I looked for a school that did not close during the war and enrolled my children there.”

“I don’t believe remote learning is as beneficial as in-person education,” she said. “There is also the severe psychological strain that war places on my children and on us adults alike. So I believe in-person learning is better as long as it remains possible.”

A displaced man, who fled his home after an Israeli evacuation order, sits in a university-turned shelter in Sidon, Lebanon, April 13, 2026. REUTERS/Aziz Taher

Schools prepare for both scenarios

Schools are facing the same uncertainty.

Several schools in southern Lebanon outside areas exposed to bombardment are preparing to open for the new academic year, but they are not assuming in-person learning will remain possible throughout it.

One private school in Nabatieh told parents it was preparing to “adopt in-person learning whenever security conditions allow.”

The message reflects a broader effort by schools to prepare for either in-person or remote teaching, depending on developments on the ground.

The approach is also in line with the Education Ministry’s plan for the 2026-27 academic year, which seeks to keep education running according to conditions in each area: in-person teaching where safety and preparedness allow, and remote learning in areas affected by the security situation.

Between school and home, safety comes first

Some families have made the opposite calculation, choosing remote learning as the safer option.

Leila’s children had been attending a secondary school in Toul, in the Nabatieh district. She decided to move them to another school in Zebdine after their former school said it would return to in-person teaching next year, while the new school announced it would continue remotely.

“I’ll keep them with me at home,” she said. “That will feel safer to me.”

People shelter at a school, which is hosting displaced people, following an escalation between Hezbollah and Israel, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Lebaa, Lebanon, March 15, 2026. REUTERS/Raghed Waked

The Tarhini family made a similar choice from abroad.

They left for Africa after the war broke out and enrolled their children in a Lebanese school offering remote learning while they waited for the situation to stabilize.

“The political and battlefield developments do not bode well, and it seems the war will undoubtedly return,” the father said, adding that the family’s decision gave him greater peace of mind for now.


Barrack: Israeli Strike on Syria’s Abu al-Duhur Base Sought to Bait Türkiye

Abu al-Duhur airbase following strikes, Syria, August 18, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer
Abu al-Duhur airbase following strikes, Syria, August 18, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer
TT

Barrack: Israeli Strike on Syria’s Abu al-Duhur Base Sought to Bait Türkiye

Abu al-Duhur airbase following strikes, Syria, August 18, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer
Abu al-Duhur airbase following strikes, Syria, August 18, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer

The Israeli strike on the Abu al-Duhur military base in northern Syria near the Turkish border last Tuesday, may have been intended to provoke Ankara and is considered a “very dangerous game,” US Special Envoy to Syria and Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack said on Saturday.

Eight Israeli airstrikes hit the airbase early Tuesday, targeting the runway and storage facilities, Syria’s state-run Al-Ikhbariya had reported.

In response, Ankara accused the Netanyahu government of using “cheap politics” for electoral gain and seeking to portray Türkiye as a new threat.

According to Barrack, the incident escalated from another Israeli strike in Syria into a moment that could have triggered a far more dangerous regional confrontation.

The ambassador invoked the downing of a Russian jet in late 2014 that escalated regional tensions.

In a YouTube interview with podcast host Mario Nawfal and in comments to PBS NewsHour, Barrack said the incident in which Israeli jets, without advance warning, struck the airbase in Syria - around 80 kilometers east of the Turkish border - intended to “bait” or provoke Ankara.

He described a situation in which fighter jets operate near a border without coordination or warning as a “very dangerous game.”

Last Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office described the airstrikes as a warning to Türkiye against expanding its military presence in Syria or helping rebuild the Syrian armed forces.

In return, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani told Axios that Damascus had previously informed Israel there were no plans to establish a Turkish military base at Abu al-Duhur, which was being rehabilitated for use by the Syrian Air Force.

For its part, the Turkish presidency rejected the Israeli allegations as “baseless,” accusing Netanyahu of promoting them ahead of Israel’s October elections and calling on the international community to curb Israeli actions threatening regional peace and stability.

Barrack said Israel might have received intelligence indicating Turkish military personnel or military assets could be stationed at the Syrian base.

According to Barrack, Israel raised the concern with the United States about six days before the strike.

“We have some intelligence that there might be Turkish movement into this site, which we would be very concerned about,” Barrack said about the message delivered to Washington.
Barrack then confirmed reports that Mossad chief Roman Gofman had spoken with al-Shaibani several days before the strike to convey Israel’s concerns. He described the talks as a two-hour, in-depth conversation.

Despite those contacts, Israeli forces struck the base’s runways without Türkiye receiving advance warning of the operation.

Scenarios of Israeli Strikes on Abu Al-Duhur Base

According to Barrack, one possibility that led to the strikes on Abu al-Duhur is that “the Israelis were baiting the Turks.”

He directly linked this possibility to Israeli politics, saying that the strike may have been a “very aggressive but maybe a well-received pre-election concept.”

He added that another possible reason for the attack on Abu Duhur was a miscommunication between the Israeli military and the country’s intelligence agency.

Barrack said it was likely that Israel had intelligence suggesting Türkiye may be bolstering its presence in the area and “a commander somewhere in the field made a decision ‘We’re not going to let that happen’... What they didn’t do is tell us or Türkiye.”

Barrack said the Turkish leadership exercised “maximum restraint and patience” when they saw Israeli aircraft, and that they did not allow tensions to escalate into direct conflict.

He told PBS NewsHour that Türkiye had explicitly stated it has no aggressive intentions or posture toward Israel and does not want to participate in any military operation or direct conflict. “What the Turks want is a sovereign and independent Syria, and that is what we, Israel, and all the countries of the region want,” he said.

While the American diplomat acknowledged “Israel's legitimate security concerns,” he stressed that diplomacy and maintaining open channels of communication “are a priority under the current circumstances.”

Cheap Politics

For its part, Ankara said the Netanyahu government is seeking to portray Türkiye as a new threat as part of “cheap politics” aimed at gaining an electoral advantage.

Türkiye's Communications Directorate on Friday warned that Israel's increasingly aggressive threat rhetoric poses serious risks to regional and global stability.

It said the “cheap politics” pursued by Netanyahu and his associates, which it said was also designed to secure an advantage in elections, has no resonance in Israeli society, the region, the international community or Türkiye.

The directorate strongly rejected remarks by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office concerning President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The office on Friday called Erdogan an “antisemitic dictator.”

The directorate described the comments as an “impertinent rant” devoid of historical facts and political seriousness and another sign of the desperation of an administration seeking to evade accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.