Articles

This essay explores the figures of crisis and catastrophe, from ancient cosmologies to the lived experience of a world in upheaval. Bringing together 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 as a series of seven essay-chapters, the text 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. What follows is the fourth part.

This series of articles aims to provide a clearer understanding of the current situation on the Lebanese scene in light of the past, setting aside passionate, ideological, or romanticized narratives that miss the realities on the ground, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. The previous ten installments examined a reinterpretation of events surrounding Hezbollah's rise to power, from the Taif Agreement through the Israeli army's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, up to the 2006 war and its aftermath. The deployment of the Lebanese army — known internationally as the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) — then under the command of General Michel Sleiman, to southern Lebanon was ordered by Fouad Siniora's government on August 16, 2006. This deployment, the first since 1968, was immediately launched at dawn on August 17 with the crossing of the Litani River via military Bailey bridges and improvised crossings, as the permanent bridges had been destroyed by Israeli bombardments.

Lebanon and the region are virtually on "pause." President Donald Trump indicated at the start of the weekend that he had granted Iran a one-week reprieve as a goodwill gesture during the funeral of former Supreme Leader of the Republic Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the massive American-Israeli bombardment that triggered the war launched against the Iranian regime on February 28. The pause will end on July 11, the date announced on Saturday for the resumption of talks between Washington and Tehran, which will take place in Islamabad. On the agenda: sanctions, frozen Iranian assets, and the nuclear file.

At every decisive moment in Lebanon’s history, the same rhetoric resurfaces: threats to bring down the government, warnings of yet another collapse, and an escalating political confrontation. Yet the question is no longer whether Nabih Berri can topple the government. The real question has become far simpler: what comes next? What is the alternative? What vision does he offer for Lebanon? And how is the country expected to emerge from its crisis if it once again slips into the vicious cycle of political and institutional paralysis? If opposition to the framework agreement genuinely stems from a desire to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty, then those who reject it should put forward a clear, realistic and workable alternative. Simply calling for the government’s downfall without presenting the slightest roadmap offers the Lebanese nothing but deeper uncertainty.

Nada Hamadé Mouawad, how have you managed to become so unpopular in the circles of Naim Qassem, in Dahiyeh and beyond? Did you have any idea that the signature you affixed in Washington on June 26 would trigger demonstrations across several parts of the country? So much so that our army had to intervene overnight to restore order on the road leading to Beirut International Airport. And all this simply because you fulfilled your patriotic duty: using diplomacy to secure the withdrawal of the IDF from the southern regions it still occupies. How criminal it is to deny the obvious! It is not armed resistance that can liberate Jabal Amel, but negotiations and diplomatic talks conducted under American auspices.

On the surface, the situation in Lebanon — and, to a lesser extent, across the region — appears to be on "pause"… However, appearances can be deceiving, because in practice the pieces of the puzzle are gradually and quietly being put into place by players who are clearly in control of the game. To grasp the true scope of the game currently being played out in the Levant and well beyond, one need only draw connections between the maneuvers and actions — or "moves," as English speakers would say — of the decision-makers working to reshape the region's new geopolitical landscape. If one were to identify a broad guiding thread running through current developments, it would be the increasingly pronounced isolation of the Iranian regime on the international stage.