Trump Zone: Lebanon’s Depopulation and Gulf Investments

Imagine waking up one morning to find your quiet village, nestled along the rolling hills of South Lebanon, slated for a drastic transformation. The streets where children once played, the olive groves tended for generations, the church bells ringing in harmony with mosque calls—all potentially erased. This isn’t a dystopian novel; it’s the reality of a controversial proposal dubbed the Trump Zone, a plan that’s stirring heated debates across the region and beyond. As someone who’s followed global politics closely, I can’t help but feel a mix of intrigue and unease about what this means for Lebanon’s future. Could an economic overhaul funded by Gulf giants really reshape a war-torn border, or is it a geopolitical chess move dressed up as progress?

The Trump Zone: A Bold Vision or a Risky Gamble?

The concept of the Trump Zone emerged recently, floated as a solution to long-standing tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border. At its core, the plan envisions transforming South Lebanon into an economic zone, replacing villages with state-run industrial projects. Backed by hefty investments from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it’s pitched as a way to create jobs and stability. But here’s the kicker: it requires depopulating entire communities, handing over control to US forces, and granting Israel rights to build military bases in what’s now Lebanese territory. Sounds ambitious, right? Or maybe a little too ambitious.

We need to replace conflict with opportunity, but it can’t just be about taking away livelihoods without a plan.

– Middle East policy analyst

The idea, according to regional experts, is to weaken Hezbollah’s grip by offering economic alternatives to its supporters. Hezbollah, funded by Iran for decades, has been a dominant force in South Lebanon, both as a militia and a social provider. The Trump Zone aims to shift this dynamic, but at what cost? I’ve always believed that economic incentives can change behavior, but uprooting entire communities feels like a gamble that could backfire spectacularly.

What Does Depopulation Really Mean?

Let’s break it down. The plan reportedly involves clearing out 27 villages along the border, from Naqoura in the west to Marjayoun in the east. These aren’t just dots on a map—they’re home to diverse communities, including Shi’ite, Sunni, and Christian populations. Towns like Rmeish, with its historic St. George church, and al-Bustan, a Sunni hub, face the same fate as Shi’ite strongholds like Odaisseh and Ayta al-Shaab. The proposal calls for the complete depopulation of these areas, with no residents allowed to remain. Instead, the land would host industrial zones, supposedly to provide jobs.

But here’s where it gets murky. If no one can live there, who exactly is benefiting from these jobs? The logistics don’t add up. Are displaced families expected to commute to work in a militarized zone? Or is this just a way to clear the land for other purposes? I can’t shake the feeling that this plan prioritizes geopolitical strategy over human welfare. The destruction of villages like Kfar Kela and Houla, already scarred by conflict, raises serious questions about cultural and historical loss.

• 27 villages targeted for depopulation.
• Diverse communities, including Shi’ite, Sunni, and Christian, affected.
• Historic sites, like churches and mosques, at risk of being erased.

The human toll is hard to ignore. Families who’ve lived in these villages for generations could lose everything. I’ve read stories of Lebanese farmers tending olive groves passed down for centuries—will they be forced to abandon their heritage? The plan’s backers argue it’s a necessary sacrifice for peace, but I wonder if they’ve considered the long-term resentment this could breed.

The Role of US Military and Israeli Bases

Perhaps the most controversial aspect is the proposed US military presence. Reports suggest 1,500 to 2,000 US troops—or possibly contractors—would oversee the Trump Zone, effectively turning South Lebanon into a militarized buffer. This raises red flags about Lebanese sovereignty. Why would a sovereign nation cede control of its territory to foreign forces? The stated goal is to reassure Israeli settlers in the north, but it feels like a power play that could alienate the Lebanese people further.

Then there’s Israel’s role. The plan grants Israel the right to build permanent military bases in 14 of the depopulated villages, including Khiam, Yaroun, and Maroun El-Ras. This isn’t a minor concession—it’s a fundamental reshaping of the border. Israel’s insistence on maintaining a military presence in Lebanon suggests a long-term strategy to secure its northern frontier, but at the expense of Lebanon’s autonomy. I can’t help but wonder: is this really about peace, or is it about control?

Sovereignty isn’t just about land; it’s about a nation’s right to decide its future.

– International relations scholar

The involvement of US forces adds another layer of complexity. Are these troops there to maintain order, or are they a symbolic show of American influence in the region? Either way, the optics aren’t great. For a country like Lebanon, already grappling with political instability and economic collapse, foreign military control could deepen distrust among its people.

Gulf Money: A Promise of Prosperity?

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the financial heavyweights behind the Trump Zone, reportedly ready to pour billions into the project. The idea is to create state-run industries that generate jobs, particularly for former Hezbollah members and supporters. The logic is straightforward: if you take away their weapons, you need to offer an alternative livelihood. But can Gulf money really solve such a complex problem?

I’ve always been skeptical of top-down economic solutions in conflict zones. The Gulf states have a track record of funding massive projects—think Dubai’s skyscrapers or Qatar’s World Cup stadiums—but those are built in stable environments. South Lebanon, with its history of war and sectarian divides, is a different beast. The plan assumes that economic incentives will outweigh political and ideological loyalties, but that’s a big “if.” Hezbollah’s influence isn’t just financial; it’s deeply cultural and social.

The Gulf’s involvement also raises questions about their motives. Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar have their own agendas in the region, often at odds with each other. Are they investing out of altruism, or is this a way to counter Iran’s influence in Lebanon? The promise of prosperity is tempting, but it comes with strings attached.

Hezbollah and the Economic Alternative

The Trump Zone’s backers argue it’s a way to neutralize Hezbollah without bloodshed. By offering jobs, they hope to lure fighters away from the militia. It’s a noble idea in theory, but I’m not convinced it’s realistic. Hezbollah isn’t just a military group; it’s a way of life for many in South Lebanon. It provides schools, hospitals, and a sense of identity. Can factories compete with that?

Experts estimate that Hezbollah employs around 40,000 people, many of whom rely on the group for their livelihoods. Disarming them without a viable alternative could lead to chaos. The Trump Zone aims to fill that gap, but the details are vague. What kind of jobs will these be? Are we talking about low-wage factory work or sustainable careers? Without clarity, it’s hard to see this as more than a pipe dream.

1. Identify viable industries: What can South Lebanon produce that’s competitive?
2. Ensure fair wages: Jobs must offer more than Hezbollah’s support.
3. Build trust: Communities need to believe in the plan’s intentions.

I’ve seen similar initiatives fail when they don’t account for local dynamics. People in South Lebanon are wary of foreign intervention, especially from the US and Israel. The trauma of past conflicts lingers, and any plan that smells of outside control will face resistance. Maybe I’m being cynical, but trust is harder to build than factories.

Lebanon’s Sovereignty at Stake

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: sovereignty. Lebanon has struggled for decades to assert its independence amid regional power struggles. The Trump Zone, with its US troops and Israeli bases, feels like a step backward. Why should Lebanon give up control of its land to foreign powers? The argument is that it’s a trade-off for peace, but I can’t help but question who’s really benefiting here.

The plan’s critics argue it’s a form of neo-colonialism, dressed up as economic development. By depopulating villages and handing over control to foreign forces, Lebanon risks becoming a pawn in a larger geopolitical game. The involvement of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while financially appealing, only complicates things. Both nations have their own rivalries and agendas, and Lebanon could get caught in the crossfire.

A nation’s strength lies in its people, not in foreign blueprints for progress.

– Lebanese political commentator

I’ve always believed that true progress comes from within. Lebanon’s history is one of resilience, but also of external interference. The Trump Zone might promise jobs and stability, but it risks alienating the very people it claims to help. Without local buy-in, it’s just another top-down experiment doomed to fail.

Can It Actually Work?

So, here’s the million-dollar question: can the Trump Zone deliver on its promises? On paper, it’s a bold attempt to break the cycle of conflict in South Lebanon. Jobs, investment, and stability sound great, but the devil’s in the details. Depopulating villages, ceding sovereignty, and relying on foreign powers to bankroll it all—it’s a lot to swallow. I’m torn between admiring the ambition and worrying about the fallout.

Success hinges on several factors. First, the plan needs transparency. What industries will be developed? Who will manage the funds? Second, it must prioritize the needs of local communities over geopolitical goals. Finally, it has to address Hezbollah’s influence in a way that doesn’t spark backlash. That’s a tall order, and I’m not holding my breath.

Key Challenges for the Trump Zone:
  - Ensuring transparency in funding and management
  - Balancing local needs with foreign interests
  - Addressing Hezbollah’s social and political role
  - Preserving Lebanon’s sovereignty

In my experience, grand plans like this often sound better on paper than in practice. South Lebanon isn’t a blank slate—it’s a region with deep scars and deeper loyalties. The Trump Zone might be a step toward peace, but it could just as easily ignite new tensions. Only time will tell.

A Region at a Crossroads

South Lebanon stands at a crossroads. The Trump Zone represents a radical departure from the status quo, but it’s not without risks. Depopulating villages, inviting foreign military presence, and relying on Gulf money could transform the region—for better or worse. As someone who’s watched similar experiments unfold elsewhere, I can’t help but feel cautious optimism mixed with healthy skepticism.

The people of South Lebanon deserve a future free from conflict, but they also deserve a say in what that future looks like. The Trump Zone might offer jobs and investment, but it comes at the cost of displacement and sovereignty. Is it a fair trade? I’m not so sure. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how this plan reflects broader shifts in the Middle East, where economic power is increasingly tied to geopolitical influence.

What do you think? Can a plan like this bring peace, or is it just another chapter in a long history of external meddling? The answers aren’t simple, but one thing’s clear: South Lebanon’s future hangs in the balance, and the world is watching.