Few names carry as much political weight in Lebanon as Chamoun. For generations, the family has occupied a prominent place in the country's political life, from former president Camille Chamoun to National Liberal Party leader Dany Chamoun, whose assassination in 1990 remains one of the most infamous political killings of Lebanon's civil war era.
Tracy Chamoun has spent much of her life navigating that legacy. A former ambassador to Jordan, founder of the Liberal Democrats Party of Lebanon, and the second woman ever to seek Lebanon's presidency , Chamoun has long attempted to carve out a political identity distinct from both the traditional parties that dominate Lebanese politics and the regional powers competing for influence over the country.
Though a critic of Hezbollah and a supporter of institutional reform, Chamoun is equally vocal against the Israeli military aggression in Lebanon and the international community's failure to defend Lebanese sovereignty.
As Chamoun spoke to The New Arab , Lebanon is once again grappling with Israeli military assaults and the continued occupation and destruction of large parts of its southern territory. Direct talks involving Lebanon, Israel and the United States are underway, even as Israeli forces continued to pound Lebanon from the air and on the ground.
Since the latest phase of the war began on 2 March, more than one million people have been displaced by Israeli attacks and evacuation threats, while at least 3,690 people have been killed as of 10 June. Debate has also intensified over Hezbollah's future role, the Lebanese army and the country's long-delayed national defence strategy.
Throughout the conversation, Chamoun repeatedly returns to one theme: sovereignty. Whether discussing Israeli operations, Hezbollah's weapons, foreign mediation or Lebanon's fractured political system, she argues that the country's greatest challenge remains its inability to exercise full control over its own territory and decision-making.
Chamoun also spoke about the ongoing negotiations with Israel, the destruction of Christian villages in south Lebanon, Hezbollah's future, the regional confrontation involving Iran and the United States, and what she believes Lebanon's leadership should have done differently during the latest war.
Below is an edited transcript of TNA's conversation with Tracy Chamoun. Lebanon and Israel are pursuing both political and military tracks simultaneously, with further meetings reportedly planned in Washington later this month. What does Lebanon stand to gain from these talks? It's very difficult to negotiate when Israel has the upper hand. We were fortunate that President Donald Trump intervened when Israel was reportedly preparing a much larger military operation in Lebanon after launching its attack on 8 April, when it killed about 300 Lebanese people . Instead, attention shifted towards talks that President Joseph Aoun had already been advocating.
The problem is that Lebanon enters these negotiations from a position of weakness. We're dealing with an invading force and potentially an occupying force, while the conditions governing the ceasefire are largely not in Lebanon's hands.
That said, the talks remain important. Lebanon has largely disappeared from the international radar, which has allowed Israel to continue military operations, expand a so-called security zone and carry out widespread destruction.
Negotiations bring attention back to Lebanon and also provide a framework for re-establishing international boundaries and defining the discussion within a legal and diplomatic context. What would be the best possible outcome for Lebanon from these negotiations? The first step would be forcing Israel to abide by the ceasefire and stop the carnage. The current arrangement, signed under US auspices, creates a double standard. Lebanon is expected to respect the ceasefire, while Israel has effectively reserved for itself the right to strike whenever it chooses.
So we have an unconscionable situation where one side is observing a ceasefire, and the other isn't. That's not really a ceasefire, and it really presents Lebanon with this double standard where what is okay for Israel is not okay for anybody else.
We saw that again recently when Israel carried out multiple strikes in south Lebanon after negotiations in Washington , carrying out an assassination where they also killed a 17-year-old girl with her father. Hezbollah later responded, but it was not the side that initiated the violations. There have been reports about American proposals involving a special Lebanese military force tasked with disarming Hezbollah. How do you view that idea? Personally, I see it as very dangerous because it mirrors the Israeli model of Palestinians policing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank by the Palestinian Authority. In Lebanon, this would create serious confessional problems because any force created specifically for that purpose would inevitably raise questions about representation and legitimacy. Instead of strengthening national unity, it risks deepening divisions between communities.
It's also going to be a force that doesn't contain the national requirement of representation from every community, because you cannot realistically ask a member of the Shia community to go ahead and target and kill their own community—that would be fratricide.
So it's going to be an organisation which is confessional in essence and is just going to create a further divide among the different confessions in Lebanon and possibly exacerbate the violence and create more violence among the communities. Many people associate southern Lebanon with Hezbollah. But there are also Christian communities there that have been affected by the conflict. What has been the impact on those villages? The Christian villages in the south have been very seriously affected. First of all, they're caught in the crossfire to a certain extent between Hezbollah and Israeli forces. Secondly, they've been targeted by Israeli attacks, through airstrikes, targeted assassinations and demolitions.
Some villages directly on the border have been flattened, while others have suffered through infrastructure damage, lack of access to supplies and the destruction of water and solar systems that communities rely on.
What many people don't realise is that many villages in south Lebanon are mixed. They have Christian and Shia populations living side by side, and the destruction by Israel hasn't distinguished between communities.
You also have places of enormous historical and religious significance, such as the ancient Greek Catholic Melkite monastery in Yaroun, which was demolished. Airstrikes didn't hit it. It was demolished by bulldozers and explosives. So this was a very intentional demolition. We also saw Israeli soldiers disfigure a figure of Christ , so this is very intentional.
There's also Qana, associated with Jesus' first miracle and a pilgrimage site. It has been heavily targeted and has suffered repeated destruction over the decades by Israel, with many people killed there. So the Christian villages are certainly not being spared, and it is shocking to some Lebanese when they see some Christians supporting Israel, despite all this. There is no differentiation. When Israel has its agenda, it's like a bulldozer running over everything in its path. Israel argues it needs a security zone in southern Lebanon to protect its own communities in northern Israel. To what extent do you think its ongoing assaults on Lebanon are genuinely about security? If security is the objective, the best way to achieve it is to respect a ceasefire, especially if everyone else is abiding by it. But we know that Israel is the first group to violate any ceasefire. This means their intentions are not for that, but are seeking more war to pursue a much more expansionist agenda. The Litani River has always been part of their own teachings about their borders and their expansionist beliefs about Greater Israel. They've conducted many wars in the past, with one of them even called Operation Litani, in which they tried to move all the way up to that area. So yes, initially, it was presented as a buffer zone; they called it a "yellow [line]", and now they've included a "red [line]" all the way up to the Litani, and they're even pushing further north now towards the Zahrani. Simply pushing the frontline further into Lebanese territory doesn't solve the underlying problem.
The only real solution is to come to the table, respect internationally recognised boundaries and abide by a ceasefire. You ran for president in 2022. If you were president now, what would you have done differently? I had prepared a complete programme and platform for my presidency. One of the key issues I focused on was developing a national defence strategy, which I believe was essential.
After the 2024 war, when Hezbollah had been severely weakened by the pager attack and the killing of much of its leadership, there was an opportunity to engage. That was the moment for the president to sit down with all parties and say: "Okay, let's develop a defence strategy. Let's see what we can do."
At its core, the issue is who controls decisions of war and peace. We find ourselves in this situation because the Lebanese state does not have full control over that question.
Creating a sense of urgency around developing a national defence strategy should therefore have been a priority.
When US envoys Morgan Ortagus and Tom Barrack came to Lebanon, they did not arrive with a proposal for a defence strategy. Their focus was on the disarmament of Hezbollah. They also set what I considered to be an unrealistic timetable, placing enormous pressure on President [Joseph Aoun].
At the same time, Hezbollah MPs had met with the president and indicated they were open to discussing a national defence strategy. Yet that discussion was effectively pushed aside in favour of demands for immediate and complete disarmament.
The debate then escalated further, with Hezbollah increasingly being discussed as an illegal entity operating on Lebanese soil.
That inflamed the situation and reinforced the polarisation we see today, creating an "us versus them" dynamic rather than a national dialogue. I would not have allowed the discussion to reach that point. What would a Lebanese defence strategy look like? Any strategy must define the roles of the Lebanese state, the army, and all armed actors operating within the country. It should also establish clear mechanisms for defending Lebanese territory while ensuring that major military decisions are made through state institutions.
That inevitably includes addressing the question of Hezbollah's weapons, but within a broader national framework rather than as a standalone issue.
A defence strategy must also address how Lebanon responds to external threats. Before the Israeli invasion, there were clear signs that it was coming. Israel had massed large numbers of troops, reservists, tanks and bulldozers along the border for weeks. The warning signs were there.
The question then becomes—how do you prevent an invasion before it happens? Because once a foreign army enters your territory, it becomes much harder to force it out.
The Lebanese state should have done more to assert its presence at the border and make clear that it, not Hezbollah, was responsible for defending Lebanese territory. The message should have been: let us deal with our internal issues ourselves.
The problem is that the discussion quickly shifted towards immediate disarmament. I believe that was a mistake because it deepened divisions rather than creating a path towards national consensus.
As a result, the Lebanese government has now been overtaken by events. At this stage, I think it has very limited room to manoeuvre and is searching for solutions wherever it can find them, which is always a dangerous position for any government to be in. Do you think the Lebanese state has failed to respond adequately to people's demands for protection and reconstruction? A divide emerged as soon as the army was withdrawn from the South, creating a dangerous vacuum. For people whose homes are being destroyed, there is a dilemma. They want the fighting to stop, but at the same time, they ask who will defend Lebanon.
In that sense, Israel has given Hezbollah renewed relevance as a "resistance movement". This also serves Israel's interests because it helps justify further incursions, deeper penetration into Lebanese territory, and the continuation of a prolonged conflict with Lebanon, something many believe Israel has sought on multiple fronts.
I do not agree with the decision to withdraw the army. Its presence would have been a patriotic symbol while also helping maintain public morale and reinforcing the belief that the state stood alongside its citizens.
The army can always play an important role. It assists with evacuations and rescue efforts, and it represents the legitimate authority of the Lebanese state. What is the worst-case scenario going forward? I think the worst-case scenario is that we temporarily lose the south again. The last time that happened, southern Lebanon remained under Israeli occupation for more than 20 years. So this could take a long time.
I don't see much prospect for progress unless there is a significant change in Israel's leadership. The Israelis have already experienced the quagmire of Lebanon, particularly if Hezbollah continues its attacks, which they are struggling to deal with effectively at this stage.
These drones that Hezbollah is using have created a serious challenge for Israel and are causing significant military casualties. So I think the worst-case scenario is that we lose the south for a period of time. Having lived long enough to see these cycles repeat themselves throughout Lebanon's history, I do not believe the current situation is permanent. There are recognised borders and legitimate territorial boundaries that will ultimately have to be respected.
For now, we need to weather the current Israeli government's term, which could change in November. I don't know what that change would bring. We also need to see how the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States develops, as well as what happens in America after the elections in November.
We are in a very difficult situation and need to hold our ground as much as possible without giving up. We must continue pressing our demands—the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, and respect for its internationally recognised borders. Do you think peace between Lebanon and Israel is ever possible? I think that if these conditions are met, if Lebanese sovereignty is respected and if there is a government in Israel that is not expansionist and does not seek to hold Lebanese territory, as I believe the current government does, then an agreement can be negotiated.
But it would have to be negotiated in good faith and with genuine respect for all of these issues. Looking ahead, when President Joseph Aoun's term ends, would you consider putting yourself forward again? My previous experience was very difficult and really made me dislike politics. Now I'm happy to be in a position where I can speak my truth without any agenda.
I don't have political ambitions. I don't want to be a deputy. I don't want to be a minister. I'm simply speaking my truth as a Lebanese citizen, and that's very important to me.
The reality is that Lebanon does not elect its president through a popular vote. The president is elected by parliament. That makes it very difficult to be elected, simply because people want you to be. Unfortunately, that's the system we have.