Like many conflicts in the Middle East, the war in Lebanon did involve strong consideration of the oil supply in the Middle East. When one investigates the fundamental roots of the Lebanese conflict, we come to realize how much conflict resolution is rooted in the economic stability of the region. In 1989, as the Iran Iraq war and the Cold war was coming to an end, the surviving members of the Lebanese parliament of 1972 gathered in Taif, Saudi Arabia to discuss the end of the decades old civil war and anarchy.
Israeli and Syrian withdrawal and the disarmament of the militant organizations was agreed upon. However, the war ended in the favor of the Syrians as it gave Syria the authority to protect the defenseless nation. This was further cemented on May 20th, 1991 with the signing of the Lebanese Syrian treaty of cooperation where Lebanon was to be economically and politically dependent upon Damascus.
This unfair conclusion of the conflict can be drawn from two events. With the loss of Iran as an American ally and the Iraqi oil fields damaged from the war, the United States depended more heavily on the oil from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family was uncomfortable with the fact that their ally was the patron of the regional adversary of the Islamic nations. It was not a coincidence that the delegates met in Saudi Arabia to discuss the end of the war. The American and Saudi delegation supported a treaty that allowed Syria rather than Israel the upper hand in Lebanon. Also the American administration allowed the Lebanon-Syria cooperation treaty to pass as the Syrians promised to support the coalition forces in the Gulf war. The placement of Syrian authority in Lebanon did not resolve the inherent conflict between the Maronite and the Muslim factions. The chance for peace in Lebanon was missed as small scale violence between Christians and Muslims continued in the war torn country.