Articles

The question, phrased this way, may come somewhat late in the day. Yet it has the merit of being asked in explicit terms. Under what rule of law or international convention does Iran interfere in Lebanese affairs? And how has it managed to do so with complete impunity for more than forty years? Taking advantage of the collapse of the state, this interference has taken the form of military, political, and financial support provided to Hezbollah, to the point of involving our country in conflicts and confrontations that were never on the agenda of its legitimate government. How does one flirt with a diplomatic incident without actually causing one?

The renewed escalation of violence between Hezbollah and the Israeli military deployed in southern Lebanon, along with the simultaneous postponement of the American-Iranian talks that were set to open today, Friday, in Switzerland, confirms fears surrounding the terms of the memorandum of understanding reached between Tehran and Washington — terms widely seen as favoring the Islamic Republic. These concerns center on the risk of Lebanon being reduced to a mere mailbox in the context of the upcoming negotiations, which everyone knows will be lengthy and grueling, if not riddled with obstacles. The escalation raises, above all, the question of what strategy Iran is pursuing. This is a legitimate question given that Friday's outbreak of violence was triggered by a deadly Hezbollah attack — Iran's military arm in Lebanon — on an Israeli position overnight between Thursday and Friday. The fighting lasted nearly the entire day and ended thanks to yet another ceasefire between the two adversaries, brokered under pressure from Washington, but against a backdrop carrying a very significant Iranian political signal.

As Iran lies practically in ruins, the memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran on June 17 has left a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Middle East. As long as the Iranian regime remains in place and its regional proxies survive — however weakened — the foreseeable dynamic will be no different from the one that has defined the region since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Tehran. Iran would thus continue to draw on a blend of ideology and pragmatism — first to ensure its survival, then to reassert itself regionally while keeping tensions alive. Operation 'Epic Fury' is undoubtedly a masterpiece of tactical execution, but so far it has yielded no clear strategic benefit, while Iran attempts to portray itself as the big 'winner' through a barrage of false propaganda, media manipulation, and state-sponsored disinformation.

Nuclear weaponry is no longer a mere military instrument. It has become the symbol of a deeper question, that of state security in a world where the effectiveness of international guarantees keeps eroding. The war in Ukraine, the persistent tension surrounding Iran, and North Korea’s survival despite its isolation all bring the same question back to the forefront: how can states still protect themselves within an increasingly unstable international order? Ukraine, or the Lesson of Abandoning Deterrence Ukraine represents the most debated case. Having relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for international security guarantees, it found itself confronted with the Russian invasion. Since then, the question has resurfaced with even greater force: do political guarantees alone suffice to protect states against major threats?

In the midst of the great transformations sweeping the region, the Lebanese front appears to be the only one still waiting for the final picture of what is unfolding between the United States and Iran to come into focus. The agreement that halted the war machine and redrew the lines of regional confrontation has yet to reveal the full extent of its repercussions on Lebanon, while the Lebanese watch and wait for the coming days to disclose which direction the forces bound to the Iranian project will take, after long years of wagers, wars and ventures. It is true that the ceasefire represents a gain for all Lebanese, after the country paid an exorbitant price in lives, economic resources, infrastructure and social cohesion. Yet this development cannot turn back the clock, nor erase the catastrophic consequences the war has left in its wake. Every party today seeks to present itself as the victor, but the question that matters to the Lebanese is not who won and who lost — it is what the Lebanese State has gained, and where are the achievements that consolidate legitimacy, institutions and national sovereignty.

In a country burdened by an unprecedented economic collapse, a persistent financial crisis and a crumbling infrastructure, the resurrection of Kleyaat airport in northern Lebanon has the feel of a project carrying as many ambitions as questions. But beyond the political and media enthusiasm that has accompanied this initiative, a more fundamental question demands to be asked: does Kleyaat truly represent the most viable option for Lebanon, or has the real debate around a second airport in the country not yet begun? This is not about opposing the project as such. Having a second airport in Lebanon is no longer a luxury, but a national, security and economic necessity. The experience of recent years has shown with stark clarity how exposed the country becomes when it depends on a single airport, whether in times of war, security crises, or under the mounting operational pressure bearing down on Beirut airport. The principle commands near-universal agreement. The disagreement starts with a different question: why Kleyaat? And why now?