Analyze

The region stretching from Iraq to Lebanon, Syria and Israel, with the United States in the background, is undergoing a profound transformation in the function of weapons within the state. The broader trajectory points toward a redefinition of the role of armed force, whether through disarmament or its integration into security arrangements that go beyond the traditional concept of the nation-state. This reflects a gradual shift from a logic of hard sovereignty to one of managed security. At the same time, the contours of a new military-strategic bloc are taking shape in the region, where the Saudi and Turkish roles converge and whose influence extends to nuclear-armed Pakistan, against the backdrop of a sensitive Iranian repositioning. This convergence cannot be understood merely as a set of temporary alliances, but rather as part of a broader reengineering of the region, driven by a logic of “new imperial planning,” in which balances are reshaped by linking security, energy and economics within an interconnected network of interests.

Escalating tensions in the Gulf are heightening global concerns over a new disruption to navigation in the Red Sea. Such a development would impose new constraints on an already costly global maritime trade network while triggering another supply crisis in areas close to the conflict zones surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the geopolitical risks associated with them in the Middle East, should the conflict drag on. The same scenario has repeated itself so often that it has become almost predictable. President Donald Trump has raised his threats to their highest level. Washington is openly discussing the possibility of a large-scale strike, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks of alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz. Markets have begun pricing in the prospect of a regional war. Oil prices surge, stock markets retreat, and the region slips deeper into uncertainty.

How can we make sense of the fact that, despite the existence of this other Lebanon beneath the ground, Hezbollah suffered such a devastating defeat, lost entire ranks of its fighters, and brought about the deaths and displacement of the people of southern Lebanon? It even contributed to reshaping and fragmenting the country’s geography itself. A speech by Hassan Nasrallah, in which he declared that he was searching for the Israeli soldier “with a lantern and a wick,” revealed to me not merely a passing political exaggeration, but an entire architecture of imagined power. What we are witnessing is not simply a gap between rhetoric and reality, but a deeper flaw: an unrealistic perception of capability itself. The power that Hezbollah projected through its network of tunnels and vast missile arsenal failed to “capture a single soldier” or alter the rules of engagement. The outcome is the reality we are living today.

At pivotal moments in history, a nation’s strength is measured not only by its military capabilities, but also by the caliber of those who represent it. High-stakes negotiations are not merely technical discussions about maps or security arrangements. They are a test of a state’s ability to defend its historical narrative while shaping its future. It is in this context that Ambassador Simon Karam stands out as one of the leading figures of Lebanese diplomacy. His authority rests neither on eloquence nor media visibility, but on quiet composure, rigor, and the integrity of a statesman who measures success by what he accomplishes for his country rather than for himself.

Sohmor. A town located in the western Bekaa, home to fifteen hundred households and between five and eight thousand residents. Given its size and population, the term "village" is the most geographically appropriate way to describe Sohmor. Sohmor has been repeatedly targeted by Israeli bombardments, as if it were routine for them. If this village and its successive mayors have been a magnet for the Israeli army, its municipality has proven to be a true lightning rod. Among the top ten worst electricity bill defaulters listed by EDL are: the Southern Water Authority, the Bekaa Water Authority, and the municipality of Sohmor…

History does not remember only the cities where wars came to an end. It remembers the cities where new political orders were born. That is why Rome may one day be remembered not merely as the city that hosted another round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, but as the place where the process of reshaping Lebanon’s political and security architecture began after a war that profoundly altered the regional balance of power. The meetings scheduled in Rome are about far more than a ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal, or a prisoner exchange, important as those issues undoubtedly are. They form part of a broader process aimed at translating the outcome of the war into a new political reality capable of preventing any return to the pre-war status quo.

The war in Ukraine continues to be at the center of a wide-ranging debate, fueled in part by near-daily bombardments targeting key nerve centers on both sides, and more specifically the Russian and Ukrainian capitals. In order to better understand the various dimensions of this long-standing conflict, it is necessary to revisit the background and origins of what led to this (fratricidal?) war – by examining the motivations and aspirations of the different parties involved, including the West (the United States and Europe, extended to all NATO member states with the exception of Turkey), and by also recalling the early stages of the Russian offensive and the failed attempts to reach peace, or at least to open negotiations, bearing in mind that responsibility in this context is shared by many.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup ended on a high note for FIFA, the United States, and football fans alike. Tournament revenues are expected to reach $13 billion, making this edition the most profitable sporting event in history. The result further strengthens Gianni Infantino’s position ahead of his bid for re-election as FIFA president next year. This World Cup also ranked among the most expensive sporting events ever staged in the United States. On the secondary market, ticket prices soared, with an average purchase price of $10,800 and individual tickets fetching as much as $32,000. Whether that is good or bad news depends entirely on whether one is buying… or selling.

The confrontation now shaking the Middle East is no longer simply another chapter in the conflict between Iran and its adversaries, nor can it be reduced to a struggle between Tehran, the United States, and Israel. Recent developments point to a reality that extends far beyond the war itself. They raise a more fundamental question: what regional order will emerge from this confrontation, what place Iran will occupy within it, and what future awaits the network of armed groups through which Tehran has built a substantial share of its influence across the Arab world. For many years, Iran’s strategy rested on a relatively straightforward equation: safeguarding its own territory while extending its influence and deterrent capability beyond its borders through a network of allies and armed groups stretching from Iraq to Yemen, via Lebanon. This model provided Tehran with what it regarded as a “strategic depth,” enabling it to exert pressure on its adversaries from multiple theatres without necessarily turning Iranian territory itself into the primary battlefield.

Hold on tight! By bombing Iran for the umpteenth consecutive night, the United States would allegedly have been doing nothing more than trying to communicate with Tehran. Each strike on a military or civilian target — every radar destroyed, every launch pad taken out, every oil refinery hit — would count only as a message to the adversary. It would merely be a signal to resume or continue talks under certain conditions! Or so Thomas Schelling, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics, would have argued. In his view, it is precisely when cannons roar and fire rains from the sky that belligerents exchange messages and communicate with one another — war being nothing more than a form of negotiation carried out by other means.