Articles

This essay explores the figures of crisis and catastrophe, tracing them from ancient cosmologies to the lived experience of a world shaken to its foundations. Bringing Greek, Biblical and Indian traditions into dialogue with the philosophy of Jan Patočka, it examines how civilizations have conceived disorder, collapse, irreversibility, and even the possibility of action when meaning itself begins to falter. Published here as a series of seven essays, this study follows a demanding yet essential line of inquiry: Is catastrophe a sudden rupture, a slow disintegration of the world, or the deepest truth of our historical condition? What follows is the second chapter.

Regardless of the political and media debate surrounding the content of the US-Iran agreement, recent developments have made it increasingly clear that new dynamics are taking shape across the region. Their defining feature may well be turning the page on the long-standing and deep-rooted conflict between Washington and Tehran and replacing it with a framework for managing their differences according to parameters markedly different from those that prevailed in the past. It is in this context that Iran’s insistence on “bringing the state of war between the two countries to an end can best be understood”.

After the displays of joy and goodwill following its supposed "victory" against the Israeli-American camp, the pro-Iranian axis quickly bared its teeth when confronted with ground realities, as revealed by the chain of events since the signing of the memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington on June 18, followed by the agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv on June 26. Iran, which believed it could call the shots after successfully getting its key priorities included in the text of the agreement with Washington, quickly revealed the limits of the "goodwill" it had touted throughout the negotiations that led to the signing of the document presented as a prelude to a regional peace deal.

The diplomatic act of June 26, in Washington, undeniably reflects, in and of itself and regardless of what follows, tremendous political courage on the Lebanese side. The substance of the framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel at the conclusion of five rounds and two months of direct negotiations held in Washington, under the supervision of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is historic in every sense of the word. The terms of this document represent a genuine turning point in the evolution of the deep existential crisis that has relentlessly undermined the very foundations of the country, its political system, its stability, and its prosperity for decades.

Every time Lebanon edges closer to a serious attempt at restructuring its relationship with its surroundings and with itself, a ready-made narrative resurfaces, reducing every negotiation process to a matter of 'surrender.' This label is no longer a simple political disagreement — it has become a tool for systematically blocking any process that could rehabilitate the very notion of statehood. Even more troubling, it is used to strip the state of its own legitimacy whenever it performs its natural role: negotiating and making decisions. The proposed framework agreement is not a surrender. On the contrary: it represents an advanced attempt to reintegrate Lebanon into the circle of states that hold sovereign decision-making power exclusively through their institutions — not through parallel power centers or entities operating outside the state.

In the aftermath of the disastrous June 1967 war—the so-called Six-Day War—the Arab countries were forced to confront a bitter reality: Egypt had lost the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula; the Hashemite Kingdom had been stripped of Jerusalem and the West Bank; while Syria had ignominiously withdrawn from the Golan Heights. Yet the Baath regime in Damascus, refusing to assume responsibility for a historic defeat, suggested that Israel had not truly won as long as it had failed to overthrow the Syrian regime. As long as the regime remained standing, Tel Aviv could not claim victory. This attitude of denial would set a precedent whenever the Arabs suffered a Waterloo. And so, true to form, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, raising his voice despite the retreat, proclaimed on the eve of Ashura commemorations the victory of the Party of God “against the conspiracy woven by the alliance of the United States and Israel, under the cover provided by the Lebanese state.”