Articles

July 8, 2026 will go down as a pivotal date in the history of the Atlantic Alliance. The "Ankara Declaration," published at the close of the NATO summit held in Turkey, highlighted a profound transformation — technological, financial, and geopolitical alike. This shift to NATO 3.0 refocuses the organization on a doctrine of informational superiority and high-intensity territorial defense, with Turkey affirming itself as the southern cornerstone. A financial revolution: the Bank for Defence and Resilience One of the summit's most innovative aspects is its response to the financial challenges of rearmament. Although the European Union established the 150-billion-euro SAFE fund (Security Action for Europe) for defence in 2025 — from which Canada and Turkey are excluded — the Atlantic Alliance had to find its own solution to bring these countries on board. Against a backdrop where member states are committing to raising defence spending to as much as 5% of GDP, nine countries — including Turkey and Canada — announced the creation of the Bank for Defence, Security and Resilience .

This essay explores the figures of crisis and catastrophe, from ancient cosmologies to the lived experience of the world’s upheaval. By bringing into dialogue the Greek, biblical, and Indian traditions with the thought of Jan Patočka, it examines how civilizations have conceived disorder, collapse, irreversibility, and even the very possibility of action when meaning itself begins to falter. Published here in seven chapter-essays, this work follows a demanding yet essential thread: to understand whether catastrophe is a sudden rupture, a slow disintegration of the world, or the deepest truth of our age. This is the seventh and final installment.

Can Lebanon and Syria ever enjoy calm, balanced relations founded on mutual respect? It is difficult to believe so when our relationship has so often been governed by hostility, suspicion, and threats carried through. Throughout our shared history, no humiliation has been spared us, regardless of the regime ruling in Damascus. Take, for example, what befell our small country beginning in August 1948, when Khaled al-Azem*, then Prime Minister of Syria, imposed "controls on imports and an embargo on goods destined for Lebanon." In the collective memory of our fathers' generation, his name remains forever associated with the closure of the Syrian-Lebanese border in 1949—a decision driven by political motives as well as protectionist policies. It amounted to an attempt to suffocate Lebanon economically and force it into submission. Even then, Lebanon served as Damascus's whipping boy—long before Abdel Hamid Khaddam turned it into his favorite scapegoat.

During major periods of geopolitical transformation, states are not always the driving force behind events. Yet they can find themselves in a position that allows them to redefine their role. Lebanon, which for decades has served as an arena for regional and international rivalries, may now be facing a rare opportunity to move from being a country shaped by crises to one capable of helping shape a new phase in the region. This prospect comes at a time of profound change across the Middle East, as regional and international powers reassess their priorities after years of open conflict. One of the key questions is whether the difficulties facing the US-Iran understanding process could lead to a reordering of priorities, making the strengthening of the Lebanese state part of a broader regional approach.

Tensions between the Americans and Iranians had been gradually escalating for several days, against a backdrop of Iranian strikes on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The worst-case scenario materialized overnight Wednesday into Thursday: the Americans launched heavy strikes on Iran, as US President Donald Trump had threatened the day before. Iran, true to form, fired missiles at several Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar — and this time added Jordan to the list. Jordan intercepted 10 missiles fired at its territory around midday. A significant escalation, to say the least.

The Middle East is undergoing unprecedented transformations that are reshaping the region’s security and power landscape. After years of open wars and proxy conflicts, the region is gradually moving toward a new approach built on strengthening the nation-state, reducing the influence of non-state armed organizations, and rebuilding military and security institutions as the sole guarantor of stability. Against this backdrop, Lebanon has a rare opportunity to rethink its defense architecture in a manner that reflects these regional changes while safeguarding its national interests. Over the decades, Hezbollah has accumulated advanced military and technological expertise in command, intelligence, drones, electronic warfare, communications, and logistics. This expertise represents valuable human capital that should not be allowed to go to waste. Instead, within the framework of the state’s legitimate authority, it should be integrated into the Lebanese Armed Forces and the country’s security institutions, thereby strengthening state sovereignty instead of perpetuating divided authority over national security.