Articles

Donald Trump has just committed American forces to a large-scale operation against the Iranian regime. This is the real McCoy, the real thing, not a simulated raid nor a mere warning shot. The face of the Middle East is about to change. And, truth be told, it is the arrogance of the ayatollahs that will have brought about their downfall. Indeed, only a few days ago, the United States dealt Iran an affront that the ayatollahs had every interest in keeping quiet. During the latest conclave held in Geneva on Thursday, under the auspices of the Sultanate of Oman, Steve Witkoff, the American negotiator, abruptly broke off the talks and withdrew from the meeting on the pretext that he had other obligations to fulfil. In fact, he was heading to meet, on the other side of Lake Geneva, a Ukrainian delegation. Bitter pills to swallow One can easily imagine the indignation of Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. This heir to the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus and Darius was treated as a nobody. Swallowing his pride, the Iranian foreign minister nevertheless declared that “good progress” had been made during the talks, which he described as “one of our most intense and longest series of negotiations.” Moreover, Araghchi announced that a new round of talks would take place in less than a week. The Omani mediators, seeking to calm tensions, immediately confirmed this, specifying that negotiations were expected to resume at technical level the following week in Vienna. Their optimistic tone appears to have been contradicted by events, since the American team was evidently disappointed by the Iranian proposals. As evidence, there was the brevity of the second session, from which Donald Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, withdrew under a questionable pretext. Times have changed Discussions were taking place under the threat of an imminent strike that, in the event, was launched this morning. The American military build-up in the region is unprecedented: two carrier strike groups centred on aircraft carriers, 200 aircraft, aerial refuelling equipment and submarines equipped with Tomahawk missiles, not to mention the presence of 50,000 troops. This is no longer the period of 2013–2015 under Barack Obama, who did not harbour principled hostility towards Iran. Indeed, John Kerry, who replaced Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in 2013, quickly conveyed the message to the relevant parties: the United States was ready to modify its stance towards Tehran. It was prepared, at least de facto, to recognise the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear programme and to abandon the demand that the ayatollahs’ regime suspend uranium enrichment activities, a demand that had blocked any possibility of reaching an agreement for seven years. The negotiations launched at that time culminated on 14 July 2015 in the agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. But that was not the end of the story, since during his first term Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement. Everything had to begin again from scratch, this time under the shadow of aircraft carriers. For Iranian negotiators, however, the years 2013 to 2015 were a “blessed era”, during which they played the leading role, demonstrating professionalism and firmness while accumulating successes. Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister, spoke loudly and was listened to. Never would his American counterpart, John Kerry, have allowed himself an incivility such as Witkoff’s. Never would he have so flagrantly snubbed him. Trump as warlord This Saturday’s American intervention has changed the equation, and Donald Trump now presents himself as a wartime leader. Too much has been said about his businessman’s instincts, supposedly inclined to avoid confrontation. Yet he was not without calculation. Has he not always hinted that he hesitated to cross the Rubicon? The page has now been turned, and his true face revealed. “Strategic ambiguity” has paid off, and it is up to free Iranians to reap the fruits.

The Iranian people — along with other populations across the Levant — had long awaited this D-Day. The intensive American and Israeli air raids launched early this Saturday morning, February 28, do not appear to be a limited, one-off strike confined in time and scope. On the contrary, they seem to signal the prelude to a comprehensive and radical offensive — both militarily and politically — against the mullahs’ regime in power in Tehran. This assessment stems not only from the breadth and scale of the U.S.-Israeli air strikes, but above all from the televised and radio address delivered in the morning by President Donald Trump (likely recorded Friday evening). With his customary frankness, the White House leader outlined without ambiguity the broad contours of the offensive, dubbed by Israel “Shield of Judah” — an allusion to divine protection. Building on the particularly firm and harsh remarks he had made in recent days regarding the Iranian regime, notably during his State of the Union address, President Trump announced in his broadcast message that the United States had launched a “large-scale” attack against Iran, adding that the operation “will continue against Iran to prevent it from posing a threat to America.” Emphasizing the geostrategic scope of the assault, President Trump added: “We will ensure that Iran’s proxies no longer pose any threat to the region,” in a clear reference to the outposts of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Lebanon (through Hezbollah), Iraq, and Yemen. Regarding Lebanon specifically, the White House chief underscored — in what marks a first for an American president — that Iran’s allies were responsible for the 1983 attack against U.S. Marines in Beirut, noting that the terrorist operation orchestrated by the mullahs’ regime resulted in 241 American soldiers killed. President Trump was particularly explicit about the objectives of the February 28 offensive. “We will destroy Iran’s missiles; we will level Iran’s naval forces,” he stated. “I call on the Revolutionary Guards to lay down their arms. If they do, they will be safe; if not, we will destroy them.” Addressing the regime directly, he continued: “Lay down your arms, and you will receive Justice.” In plain terms, President Trump is demanding the regime’s total capitulation — a demand that could only result in its collapse and eradication, and thus a radical reshaping of the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. Finally, the White House chief addressed the Iranian people: “The hour of your liberation is near.” A message swiftly embraced by residents of the al-Ahwaz region in southwestern Iran, largely populated by citizens of Arab origin, who by late morning proclaimed a rebellion against the central “Persian” authority of the mullahs. Expansion of Military Operations A sign that the offensive is not limited or temporary, the air raids were not confined to Tehran but extended to several major cities, likely targeting air defense systems and long-range missiles. Among the targeted locations were Qom, Tabriz, Kermanshah, Isfahan, Khorramabad, Karaj, and Garmdarreh. In retaliation, the Pasdaran launched around thirty ballistic missiles late in the morning toward northern Israel, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. Significantly, Iranian missile fire also targeted — on a smaller scale — Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Jordan, and even Riyadh. Tehran claimed it was striking American bases, although these had reportedly been evacuated days earlier by U.S. forces. The Position of the Lebanese State As the American-Israeli military offensive against Tehran continued, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam each issued statements explicitly stressing the need to keep Lebanon entirely out of the conflict, thereby denouncing Hezbollah’s apparent intention to join the ongoing battle. For his part, Foreign Minister Joe Raggi echoed the same stance, declaring bluntly: “Lebanon’s interest must prevail over any other consideration… Neutrality, neutrality, neutrality.”

Eyes circled in black, pure, stormy, contrasting. Beautiful enough to drown in. Dominic Harrison, alias Yungblud, rushes onto the stage and screams his fauvism at the top of his lungs. A life of rage, grandeur, and self-confidence acquired and now alchemizing. Each of his gestures is a flash; each of his movements, a fire. He doesn't just perform his songs. He lets them explode with fire. The pit ignites as soon as he appears. The bass rumbles like thunder. My daughter and her friend are a little further away, I'm in the back. Every vibration in the air passes through us. Then he emerges. Body sculpted under the spotlights, animal presence, blue eyes made up like a storm. Yungblud bursts onto the stage, he is a wild fire. A cigarette between his fingers, which he will light later, and already the heat is unbearable. His presence is lion-like. Every gesture, every movement sweeps everything in its path. He doesn't just sing: he consumes the air, the crowd, the night. Between two fucking-signatures rock'n'rolling our eardrums, his impertinence bursts forth. The stage-pit boundary disappears. We are at the heart of his storm. An immediate intensity In our arena, preheated by the Californian band Palaye Royale, Dominic's tracks erupt. Hello Heaven, The Funeral, Lovesick Lullaby, Lowlife, Changes… I hadn't experienced such a scene since those offered by our small Beirut screens, when they worked according to the electric current, in the 90s. Yungblud's musical offering is raw, true. Alternative rock, punk bursts, choruses chanted like oaths. The guitars bite. The percussion hammers. The acclaimed writing is a sensitive mix of rage, of vulnerability assumed rather than chosen. A marked aesthetic The audience is transported. Around us, a beautiful youth. From teenagers to forty-somethings, everyone has carefully chosen their outfit. Black outfits, stage flames illuminating gothic-leaning make-up, a bit or even a lot of Tim Burton's alternative rock version, DNA of our star obliges. He is not a shy singer but a lion; we can write it. His rock lineage is asserted: echoes of Nirvana, Bowie, and especially Ozzy Osbourne, a central influence for his artistic identity. Changes holds a central dimension for Yungblud. Also, on February 1st this year, Dominic won the Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance for his live cover of this last title, a Black Sabbath interpretation dedicated to Osbourne himself. Off stage, Harrison channels his energy into boxing. He shares live rehearsal moments, his dogs, and moments of closeness with his audience on Instagram. Fans ask for more because their idol is authentic. A voice for the new generation Yungblud is not just a performer. At 28, he is a mirror for youth. Vulnerable but powerful, unfiltered but always good and generous. He addresses mental health, freedom, and self-acceptance as a driving force that allows one to exist without compromise. Each of his concerts is a shared experience. Last October in Paris, when this concert took place, the energy was raw and the freedom palpable. LGBTQ+ commitment was naturally evident, without emphasis. Since then, Dominic has publicly proclaimed his support for the massacred people of Iran to his audience. One of the rare artists to voice the concerns of this free and enlightened youth, now sacrificed. Next to me, my daughter and her friend are literally electrified. They sing every word. We vibrate together, in body and soul, crossed by the same wave. This intergenerational concert created a warmth that awakens. Dominic's striking personality, his musical fauvism, disturbed me. He is an artist who shakes up codes and certainties and embodies his own in an incantatory way. He burns and blurs the bland boundaries of the ambient, often calibrated, sonic timidity. Yungblud is not just a singer. He is a catalyst of emotions, a fire that consumes and illuminates at the same time. Thanks to my daughter whose precious help and love made it possible to write this fiery piece.

Were things normal between America and Israel on one side, and Iran's "Islamic Republic" on the other, there would have been no need for all this time and all these frictions to reach an agreement between the three parties — which are, in reality, only two. In the end, America and Israel cannot be separated when it comes to the essential questions: the chain of demands made of Iran, whether regarding its nuclear file, its ballistic missiles and launch platforms, or the proxy arms controlled by the Revolutionary Guard beyond Iranian soil. Were things normal, Iran would have acted as Germany and Japan did at the end of the Second World War, when they surrendered to the Americans and their European allies. That is how Germany saved itself — and Japan likewise. Japan required a second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki after the first on Hiroshima, to grasp the meaning of America's resolve to inflict a crushing defeat upon it. Military defeat freed both countries from despotic regimes that had made each of them a threat to their surroundings, and indeed to the entire world. It enabled Germany to catch its breath and reclaim its standing in Europe and the world, while Japan's economy became one of the most significant on earth — once Japan was convinced that military confrontation with the United States served no purpose. The "Islamic Republic" still refuses to acknowledge its defeat. Such an acknowledgment would allow it to recover its role in the region and the world, and would allow the Iranian peoples to belong once again to a culture of life — a culture they were compelled to abandon the moment Ayatollah Khomeini triumphed over the Shah's regime, with its merits and its failings, in 1979. The "Islamic Republic" still believes it holds its cards in the region and that it can negotiate as an equal with the American "Great Satan," and thereby reach understandings with Israel — of the sort that paved the way for the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in the year 2000, or the "rules of engagement" that remained in force until the day Hezbollah decided to launch its "war of support for Gaza." Beyond this, Iran still views Iraq as an Iranian card. It likewise sees a card in Hezbollah in Lebanon, or in Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in Yemen. The Iranian delegation that negotiated with the Americans in Geneva — through Omani mediation, and sometimes directly — does not realize that it speaks a language long eroded by time, in light of the events and upheavals the region has witnessed since the "Al-Aqsa Flood" attack on 7 October 2023. To this day, the Iranian leadership — with "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei at its head — continues to live in the past, in the era before the "Al-Aqsa Flood." It believes that give-and-take is still possible on the question of Iran's nuclear program, while what is demanded is the complete elimination of everything connected to Tehran's nuclear program. There is no room for any procrastination if one is to reach an understanding that averts a new war against the "Islamic Republic." What applies to the nuclear program applies equally to ballistic missiles and their launch platforms, and likewise to the Iranian proxy arms in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. More than that, Iran attempted to entice Donald Trump by offering to open the Iranian market to American oil and gas companies. Tehran appears incapable of grasping the concept of a country that is safe for investment. What American company would send its employees to a country capable of turning American nationals into hostages overnight? What is needed is an Iranian upheaval at every level in order to reach an understanding with America. Until further notice, the regime in Tehran is incapable of such a transformation — incapable because there is no one in Tehran, save for a silent minority, who is able to comprehend the meaning and dimensions of what has occurred in the region since the "Al-Aqsa Flood." No one understands what it means that an American decision to twist the Iranian arm has existed since Trump tore up the agreement on the Iranian nuclear file reached with the Barack Obama administration in the summer of 2015. During his first term in the White House, the American president shredded that agreement in 2018, then ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani — who may be described as the most important Iranian figure after the "Supreme Leader." Trump did not go to Caracas to arrest Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in order to discipline a head of state who had defied his orders or cultivated close ties with Cuba. The arrest of Maduro and his wife and their transfer to New York can only be understood as part of an operation to clip the wings of the "Islamic Republic" across various parts of the world. A military American-Iranian confrontation — in which Israel will in all likelihood participate — is difficult to avoid, given the existence of two minds and two approaches that cannot be reconciled. The Iranian mind and approach rest on the notion that nothing has changed in the region, and that it is enough to dangle the prospect of investments in Iran before Trump to create a rift between the United States and Israel. The Iranian method of negotiation betrays a naive mindset that refuses to acknowledge defeat. And nothing expresses this defeat more eloquently than Iran's departure from Syria. Where was Syria, and where has it ended up after Bashar al-Assad's flight to Moscow? All the elements of the Iranian defeat are now assembled. The true act of courage lies in acknowledging that defeat. After that, one might speak of negotiations between two sides each holding its own cards — if, that is, there are any Iranian cards left to hold. When speaking of leverage, it is essential to point to the internal situation in Iran. For before the system of the wilayat al-faqih failed abroad, it first failed within Iran itself. Therein lies its fundamental weakness, above all else.

The war in Ukraine, triggered by the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, is entering its fifth year. Moscow's offensive initially aimed to overthrow the Ukrainian state in a few days, but it met fierce Ukrainian resistance and massive mobilization by Westerners to help them. The worst conflict on European soil since World War II has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries, while millions of Ukrainian refugees have fled into exile. On the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the conflict's outbreak, Levant Time interviewed Constantin Sigov, philosopher, director of the Centre for European Studies at Mohyla University in Kyiv and of the Dukh i Litera (Spirit and Letter) publishing house. «Four years after the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, the first observation is that Ukraine has survived, it has not given in at all,» Mr. Sigov immediately emphasizes. «It even won the Battle of Kyiv, whereas exactly four years ago, on February 24, 2002, Russian President Vladimir Putin was convinced that this battle would be decided in three days,» he affirms, echoing the statements of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who was receiving the heads of state and government of Ukraine's allied countries in Kyiv. «Everything Ukraine has endured must not be abandoned, forgotten, or betrayed,» Mr. Zelensky declared in an address to the nation. Mr. Sigov reminds us that Ukraine has been resisting for twelve years, since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. «Ukraine is not only defending its territory, it is defending a principle particularly relevant today in the Middle East and among our European neighbors, namely that borders must not be changed by force and violence.» But this resilience is threatened by the changing US policy towards Ukraine and NATO allies. It is true that G7 leaders, including Donald Trump, affirmed their "unwavering support for Ukraine" last Tuesday, while some thirty leaders of Kyiv's allied countries urged Russia to accept a "complete and unconditional ceasefire". For its part, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Tuesday, February 24, reaffirming its support for Kyiv and its territorial integrity: the text was adopted by 107 votes in favor, 12 against, and 51 abstentions… including the United States, because the text emphasizes "firm commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders". The Americans do not want to refer to «Ukraine's territorial integrity and international law so as not to put pressure on ongoing peace negotiations.» The battle for Europe's independence A year ago, a month after Donald Trump's return to the White House, the United States, with Russian support, pushed a resolution through the Security Council calling for a swift peace, but without mention of Ukraine's territorial integrity, much to the dismay of Kyiv's European allies. Saluting President Trump's diplomatic efforts, Russian Ambassador Vassili Nebenzia assured that Russia was participating "in good faith" in the negotiations. The same Vassili Nebenzia was present at the Council meeting on February 24, 2022. He fiercely defended his country's good intentions while 150,000 Russian soldiers massed on Ukraine's borders, before being interrupted by his Ukrainian counterpart, in tears after being informed by his government that the Russian army had broken through the front... Asked to comment on this new reality, namely the complete drying up of financial and military aid from the Biden era, Mr. Sigov reminds us that polls show that the majority of Americans wish to further support Ukraine. A factor that, especially on the eve of the US congressional elections, must be taken seriously by the Trump administration. Kyiv is thus banking on the coming months, which will be decisive. Mr. Sigov also recalls the «decisive» role of economic sanctions: «The essential thing is to deprive Russia of its capacity to harm. And if Europe clearly sets this objective, the solution will become possible.» He added: «One can generally say that the battle for Ukraine's independence, today, has become the battle for Europe's independence. Independence from both Russian gas and oil, but also from American influence. And in this sense, for a long time, Ukraine, Europe, and democratic countries in general are in the same boat.» A real awakening of consciousness «For the moment, we are witnessing a real awakening of consciousness. I think it was clear at the Munich Security Conference that, indeed, the Scandinavian countries, along with Germany, France, and Great Britain, are sensitive to this approach. But there is a terrible delay in decision-making, especially concerning the «Russian ghost fleet,» those oil tankers clandestinely used by Russia to export its oil despite international sanctions.» «But unfortunately, there is still funding coming from European Union countries. To name just Orban's Hungary and Slovakia, which have not chosen to be on the right side of history and justice.» On another note, Mr. Sigov recalls the experience gained by Ukrainians due to their determination: «From the invasion, Ukrainians were very inventive, they used drones which greatly helped to stop the aggressor, and even in some places to make them retreat, as in the Kharkiv Oblast (administrative region).» But he also reminds us that the country «is paying an enormous price: hospitals are receiving a great many seriously injured men and women, a true daily tragedy.» «It is therefore clear that what is severely lacking is massive military aid, which has been decided upon but is slow to be sent.» Mr. Sigov adds in this context, not without a hint of bitterness: «There is truly an asymmetry when we know that North Korea, without having an economy like Germany or France, supplies more ammunition to Russia than the European Union sends to Ukraine. So, I believe that what is lacking behind all this is a true political will and a determined strategic decision.» An impossible peace The academic recalls Putin's declaration: «Russia has no borders,» before quoting Orwell: «They are perfectly capable of putting their boot on the face of a human being of any nationality.» «So, we are truly witnessing a genocidal war, according to all the criteria developed by the greatest jurists at the time of Nuremberg and afterward. This term was coined by Raphael Lemkin, himself a jurist who studied at the University of Lviv.» He continued: «According to these criteria, the idea of the erasure of a nation, of its culture, of its identity, and the means of systematic aggression against civilians, including by cold, by all inhumane means, appears.» Mr. Sigov asserts that there is no political will on the Russian side to end the aggression: «One should not look for a black cat in a dark room (…). In my opinion, the war will only end when Putin no longer has the resources to continue it.» Indeed, the Kremlin affirmed on Tuesday, February 24, that "Russia's objectives have not yet been achieved," adding: "That is why the special military operation (the name given by Russia to the invasion) continues" in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin, for his part, considered that the Westerners, who arm and finance Ukraine, had not managed "to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield". Conflict of interest Moscow, which occupies about 20% of Ukraine, continues a slow but steady advance on the front. Russians regularly carry out massive drone and missile strikes, which have devastated Ukraine's energy grid, causing power and heating outages in the middle of a freezing winter. Near the front, entire cities have been reduced to rubble and the cost of rebuilding Ukraine over the next decade is estimated at more than 500 billion euros, according to an international report published last Monday, February 23. Several rounds of negotiations have taken place in recent weeks. Washington is pushing to end the war based on its plan, unveiled in late 2025, which grants enormous concessions to the Russians in exchange for US security guarantees for Ukraine. Moscow indeed demands that Ukrainian forces withdraw from the areas they still control in Donbas and thus abandon this large industrial basin in eastern Ukraine to the Russians… which Kyiv refuses, especially since the American guarantees are very vague. The Americans are represented in the discussions by Trump's close advisor, Steve Witkoff, and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The appointment of the two negotiators is criticized in Washington and Europe for what it represents as a conflict of interest. Especially since, whether in Ukraine or Gaza, Trump's associates will be the primary beneficiaries of the peace dividends.

Naim Qassem has delivered many speeches over the years. His latest, marking the anniversary of Hezbollah’s “martyr commanders,” was not particularly original—but it was revealing. It was part elegy, part sermon, part warning, and entirely predictable. The martyrs were invoked, the faith was affirmed, Israel was denounced, Iran was praised, and the Lebanese government was gently informed that it is both responsible for everything and entitled to decide very little. It is a remarkable formula: Hezbollah demands that the state defend sovereignty—provided the state does not insist on owning it. Qassem’s central argument is simple. Lebanon respected the November 2024 ceasefire; Israel did not. Therefore, the Lebanese government must confront Israeli violations. So far, so reasonable. But then comes the sleight of hand: while the government is urged to act like a sovereign authority vis-à-vis Israel, it is simultaneously warned not to act like a sovereign authority vis-à-vis Hezbollah’s weapons. Apparently, sovereignty is indivisible—except when it reaches Dahiyeh. The speech was framed as a defense of dignity. Disarmament, Qassem argued, is surrender. International aid is humiliation. Pressure to centralize weapons under the state is a foreign plot. One almost expects the next logical step: the Lebanese constitution itself is an imperial conspiracy unless interpreted by Hezbollah’s political bureau. We are told that weapons are sacred, inherited from the blood of martyrs. Debate them, and you insult the dead. Question them, and you are flirting with collaboration. It is a clever move. By sanctifying the arsenal, Hezbollah attempts to remove it from politics altogether. Arms are no longer a strategic choice; they are a theological commandment. The problem is that Lebanon is not a shrine. It is a bankrupt republic with a collapsing infrastructure and a population that would quite like to survive the next decade. Qassem insists that Hezbollah does not want war. Of course not. Hezbollah never wants war; it merely finds itself permanently adjacent to one. It does not seek escalation; it simply reserves the right to decide when escalation is necessary. It does not undermine the state; it merely operates alongside it—above it when required. This is not contradiction, we are assured. It is “resistance logic.” The irony is almost theatrical. Hezbollah demands that the Lebanese government enforce the ceasefire against Israel while simultaneously arguing that the government should stop “obsessing” over disarmament. In other words: Dear government, please exercise your authority—just not over us. The party also reassures its base that Iran is strong, the “axis” is intact, and regional fronts are interconnected. This is meant to project confidence. But it also confirms the obvious: Lebanon’s security doctrine is not purely Lebanese. It fluctuates with Tehran’s negotiations, calculations, and regional priorities. Sovereignty, apparently, is strongest when subcontracted. And then there is the economic theater. “We do not want conditional aid,” Qassem proclaims. One admires the purity of the sentiment. After all, Lebanon has done so well without conditions. Investors are famously attracted to countries where war and peace are determined by actors outside formal institutions. Markets thrive when escalation is a matter of partisan discretion. Reconstruction flourishes when the chain of command is optional. The truth is less romantic. No state can rebuild while a parallel military structure retains veto power over its strategic direction. No army can mature into a credible national institution if it must coexist with an armed organization that reserves the right to outflank it. And no sovereignty can be persuasive when it is selectively applied. There was, however, one particularly revealing maneuver in Qassem’s speech: his insistence that critics are not allowed to “go back” and question Hezbollah’s decision to drag Lebanon into war. According to this logic, history resets itself at the moment a ceasefire is signed. The past dissolves. The war becomes a closed file. The casualties become unfortunate footnotes. This is not political reasoning; it is institutional amnesia. A ceasefire may end hostilities with Israel, but it does not absolve Hezbollah of accountability toward the Lebanese people. The party unilaterally decided to open a front. It did not consult parliament. It did not seek cabinet approval. It did not ask the millions of Lebanese who would pay the price in destroyed homes, paralyzed infrastructure, lost livelihoods, and renewed displacement. One cannot claim to defend sovereignty while denying citizens the right to evaluate the cost of that defense. The war did not begin in a vacuum, and it did not affect an abstract map. It affected Lebanese first and foremost. If Hezbollah wants to speak the language of statehood, then it must accept the language of responsibility. Signing a ceasefire is not a sacrament. It does not erase the consequences of decisions taken without national mandate. History is not suspended because a party prefers not to revisit it. Hezbollah’s narrative rests on one enduring trick: presenting itself as the guardian of the state while preventing the state from becoming whole. When Israel violates, blame the government. When the government hesitates, question its courage. When the government considers consolidating authority, accuse it of surrender. Heads, Hezbollah wins. Tails, the state loses. What is most striking in Qassem’s speech is not the rhetoric about Israel. It is the anxiety about internal debate. The real battleground is no longer the southern border; it is the concept of the Lebanese state itself. The weapons question is not about betrayal of martyrs or abandonment of Palestine. It is about whether Lebanon will ever function as a single polity rather than a negotiated coexistence between institutions and militias. Hezbollah likes to frame the choice as resistance versus submission. That binary is convenient—and false. The real choice is between a country governed by law and a country governed by permanent exception. Between a defense strategy owned by the republic and a doctrine owned by a party. Between accountability and sanctification. Qassem concluded with reassurance: Hezbollah is patient. It does not seek war. It is waiting for the state to fulfill its duties. One could almost mistake this for magnanimity. But patience, when paired with a monopoly on escalation, is less a virtue than a lever. Lebanon does not need more lectures about dignity from those who insist on holding the only key to it. It needs a government that governs without caveats, an army that commands without negotiation, and a sovereignty that does not require clerical endorsement. If Hezbollah truly believes the state is responsible, then it should finally do the unthinkable: allow the state to be sovereign—not in speeches, but in practice. Anything less is not resistance. It is rehearsal.