Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The sharp deterioration in relations between Lebanon and Iran, punctuated by public confrontations, political rebukes, and questions over Tehran’s role in Lebanon’s internal affairs, is more than a Middle Eastern story. It is a cautionary episode for the Global South, particularly for India, which has long prided itself on strategic autonomy and careful distance from entangling alignments. As Lebanon grapples with the downstream effects of being seen as a theatre for Iran’s proxy ambitions, several lessons emerge for countries navigating a world increasingly shaped by great-power competition.
Lebanon’s crisis is not new; its state institutions have been steadily hollowed by years of political paralysis, economic collapse, and elite capture. But what is new is the increasingly vocal pushback, across Lebanese political factions and civil society, against Iran’s influence through Hezbollah. The result is a messy, unstable moment that exposes the cost of outsourcing sovereignty, and the fragility of states that rely on foreign security patrons.
The Lebanon–Iran Rift: A Symptom of Overreach
Lebanon’s internal backlash against Iranian involvement stems from two converging developments. First, Tehran’s assertive regional posture, from Syria to Gaza to Iraq, is increasingly seen as instrumentalising Lebanon rather than stabilising it. Hezbollah’s alignment with Iran’s regional strategy has, for many Lebanese, blurred the line between resistance movement and foreign appendage. Second, domestic exhaustion with crisis politics has pushed even traditionally neutral constituencies to challenge narratives of “strategic necessity.”
This still-unfolding fallout is not merely a rupture between two political camps; it reflects a deeper structural imbalance where a foreign power, however friendly, begins to substitute itself for the state’s own sovereign decision-making. It is the clearest evidence yet that proxification, the use of local groups as geopolitical instruments, creates resentment that eventually spills over into public and diplomatic spheres.
For Global South countries accustomed to external courtship from competing powers, Lebanon’s predicament demonstrates that influence without equilibrium eventually becomes liability.
Proxy Politics Comes with a Price
If there is a singular lesson from Lebanon’s situation, it is that no state can indefinitely absorb the strategic costs of hosting or tolerating proxy actors tied to external patrons. The diplomatic fallout is real: Lebanon’s foreign relationships are strained, its ability to negotiate aid and investment is constrained, and its internal political legitimacy is eroded.
The Global South has often been a playground for major-power competition, Soviet vs American during the Cold War, China vs the West today, and regionally, Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Turkey vs Gulf states, and so on. Countries that allow themselves to become nodes in proxy networks often discover the downside only when the bill arrives: weakened institutions, compromised sovereignty, and diminished bargaining power.
Strategic Autonomy Thrives Only When Sovereignty Is Intact
Lebanon’s experience shows that sovereignty erodes not only through formal alliances but also through informal entanglements, political, military, or ideological. Once a foreign actor begins to shape the domestic security landscape, the host nation loses the ability to act freely, negotiate independently, or recalibrate its partnerships. Strategic autonomy becomes fiction.
The Global South must recognise that autonomy is not simply the freedom to make choices; it is the freedom from structural dependence. And dependence does not always come from loans or military bases, sometimes it comes from allowing external actors to cultivate non-state clients within one’s borders. Lebanon today demonstrates the extreme form of this vulnerability.
India’s Takeaway: Avoid Proxy Entanglements Abroad, and Prevent Them at Home
India’s strategic environment is crowded with powers who prefer indirect influence: China in Nepal and the Maldives, Pakistan through militant groups, Gulf powers through diaspora politics, and Western countries through developmental and security conditionalities. Lebanon’s fallout with Iran underscores two lessons for India:
Avoid becoming a proxy target, India must continue to resist pressure from external powers to use its territory, institutions, or diaspora networks for geopolitical ends
Prevent others from proxifying India’s neighbourhood, by investing early in state capacity, political partnerships, and developmental depth in South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region
New Delhi’s push for balanced Middle East diplomacy, maintaining ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, engaging Israel while supporting Palestine, and keeping dialogue open with all major blocs, shows a pragmatic understanding of these risks.
A Warning, Not a Footnote
The Lebanon–Iran fallout is not regional noise. It is a warning shot about the consequences of allowing geopolitical patrons to define domestic politics, security agendas, and national narratives. For India and much of the Global South, the lesson is clear: strategic autonomy must be actively defended, not merely declared. States that allow themselves to become arenas for proxy competition lose not only sovereignty but also agency, predictability, and diplomatic leverage.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.