Articles

It is astonishing, puzzling, disconcerting – even strange and paradoxical – that one still encounters today the same reductive, partisan narratives, published by an agenda-driven press and amplified across social media, at a time when the country is facing critical developments both domestically and internationally, and when its fate has been sorely tested for decades. Regrettably, this is hardly a first. We are witnessing media manipulation aimed at creating a diversion and deflecting attention from the pressing issues of the day – chief among them a merciless war that is dragging the country towards total destruction and plunging it into an unprecedented socioeconomic and financial abyss.

In the first encyclical of his pontificate, Leo XIV addresses both the immense benefits and the present and potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) , a technological advance without precedent in human history, but also a formidable tool capable of enslaving humanity and distorting what it means to be human. He argues for “the possibility of peace” in an age convinced that “war is inevitably part of human nature.” The parallel between Magnificent Humanity and Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) is evident, down to its very form: Leo XIV symbolically signed his text on 15 May 2026, the 135th anniversary of the foundational encyclical of Catholic social teaching. The pope had already explained that he chose his regnal name to honour Leo XIII, drawing a direct parallel between the upheavals of the first industrial revolution and those of artificial intelligence.

The debate over whether to link or separate the various files and tracks is in full swing. Reality shows that political dossiers are by nature interconnected, reflecting the complexity of economic and political life, yet their respective weights differ and their mutual influences are far from equal. Treating any one dossier in isolation is a matter of choice, governed by priorities, the gravity of the stakes, and their sensitivity. In this respect, Barack Obama held that the strength of American foreign policy lay in the art of ordering priorities — an art that allows one to manage how quickly solutions advance in the most complex affairs, with the ability to revise that ordering daily in light of desired outcomes.

Just when it seemed Iran had definitively shelved its war machines in their silos, Tehran launched around thirty ballistic missiles against the Jewish state late Sunday evening. Iranian authorities presented this attack as retaliation for an Israeli strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, which killed two people and wounded twenty. The message is clear: Iran opposes the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations conducted under Washington's auspices and intends to position itself as a defender of Lebanon "against the Israeli enemy," even at the risk of further escalation. Tehran continues to insist that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah be addressed within the same framework as the broader confrontation opposing it to Israel and its allies in the Middle East.

In a previous article, we analyzed the military and industrial impact of the joint “Epic Fury” and “Lion’s Roar” operations on Iran’s conventional capabilities. In this second and final installment, we examine the possible combined effects of economic strangulation and grassroots mobilization that could lezd to the implosion of the Iranian regime. The naval blockade has taken over from the February and April 2026 strikes. The blockade is a necessary condition for weakening the Iranian regime, but not a sufficient one. Several factors help explain why the economic sanctions imposed over many years – compounded by the ongoing American naval blockade and its consequences, including supply chain disruptions and the halt of oil exports –struggle on their own to bring about the regime’s collapse. The Iranian regime has repeatedly proven its capacity for adaptation and restructured itself following the decapitation strike of last February.

Lebanese have long repeated the popular saying: “A thousand enemies outside the house are better than one enemy within.” In few words, this proverb has distilled across generations an enduring political and national truth: external dangers, however formidable, remain less devastating than those that seep inward to strike at the unity of the state, paralyze its judgment and undermine its sovereignty. It is through this lens that one can understand much of Lebanon’s suffering over recent decades. Iran has never dealt with the Lebanese state as a sovereign and independent entity possessed of its own constitutional institutions; it has always chosen instead to operate through forces and organizations that owe it political and ideological allegiance. In the regional circumstances following the Khomeinist revolution, under the banner of “exporting the Islamic revolution,” it found a propitious opportunity to build relays of influence extending well beyond its national borders into several Arab countries.