Opinion

On February 14, 2005, it was not only a man who was assassinated, but an entire balance that shifted. The assassination of Rafic Hariri marked a turning point in Lebanon's modern history: the moment the country moved from direct tutelage to an internal conflict open to all eventualities. Twenty-one years later, the question seems to go beyond mere remembrance: what has changed? Where is Lebanon today? And if Hariri were still among us, how would he have managed this upheaval? From Earthquake to Division The assassination pushed hundreds of thousands of people into the streets, Syrian forces withdrew, and a deep division emerged between the March 14 and March 8 camps. But the liberation from tutelage did not lead to stability, but rather a long period of polarization around sovereignty, Hezbollah's weapons, and Lebanon's regional role. Since then, every internal issue has been linked to external balances, from presidential elections to government formation. The Economy: From Reconstruction to Collapse Hariri was the symbol of post-civil war reconstruction: he rebuilt downtown Beirut, reconnected Lebanon to the world, and built his reputation on a market economy and public services. But after his assassination, this same model persisted, deprived of the political safety net he offered. Debt accumulated, reforms were postponed, and the economy remained fragile, relying on rentierism. With the war in Syria, then the 2019 uprising, the financial system collapsed. The currency plummeted, deposits vanished, and the middle class eroded. Lebanon did not suddenly collapse in 2020; it had been in disarray for years, without a figure capable of imposing an agreement to stem its decline. Lebanon Facing Regional Transformations In recent years, the region has undergone radical upheavals: the rise of Iran, the shifting priorities of the Gulf, and Syria's transformation into a battlefield. Lebanon's ties with the axis led by Tehran under Ali Khamenei have strengthened, and its involvement in regional conflicts has increased through Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Hariri's 'political legacy' has faded, notably with Saad Hariri's withdrawal from the political scene. The national balance has been disrupted, and Lebanon appears less capable of playing a mediating role and more embroiled in others' conflicts. Justice and Memory The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established, and a verdict was rendered condemning one of the accused in absentia. However, the general feeling of injustice persists. Hariri's assassination was not an isolated crime, but rather the beginning of a phase of political violence. Between those who see him as a symbol of hope and openness and those who criticize his economic model, his assassination remains a pivotal moment that cannot be ignored. If he were still alive today… what would he do? The question is hypothetical, but it can be interpreted in light of his approach. On the economic front: He would have quickly concluded a clear agreement with the International Monetary Fund and undertaken a genuine restructuring of banks and public debt. He would not have been a proponent of managing the crisis through denial, but rather of finding a major compromise: international support in exchange for deep reforms in the electricity sector and governance. In Arab relations: He would have worked to reconnect Lebanon with its Gulf partners and the international scene, leveraging any Iranian-Arab rapprochement to ease internal tensions. His strength lay in his network of relationships and his ability to reconcile opposing parties. On the issue of armaments: He probably would not have opted for a direct confrontation with Hezbollah, but rather for a progressive dialogue on a defense strategy, while simultaneously strengthening state institutions economically and securely to reduce dependence on foreign arms. To restore confidence: He knew that politics needs hope. He could have launched major projects that would have shown the people that the state was not yet dead. Between the man and the era: Would he have succeeded? No one can say for sure. The region is far more complex today, and external support is conditioned on rigorous reforms. But he would most likely have tried to impose a major agreement before reaching this profound collapse. Twenty-one years later, the question remains: was the problem the absence of Rafik Hariri, or the inability of the Lebanese to carry out the state-building project he had undertaken? Lebanon has changed considerably since 2005: the currency has collapsed, alliances have evolved, and trust in the state has eroded. But the need remains the same: a sovereign and just state, capable of protecting its economy and its citizens. This anniversary is not just a simple commemoration, it's a test. Hariri's assassination marked a turning point. Saving Lebanon today requires an equally courageous decision.

What unfolded before us was not a three-act Greek tragedy, but a lived experience: raw, immediate, degrading, and unforgivable. In less than two weeks, we watched unfold on our screens, in turn, a ludicrous comedy, a surreal situation, and a human catastrophe. Three distinct episodes, yet all exposing, revealing, and condemning the daily evils that continue to gnaw at a drained and weakened Lebanon. The Dunces’ Fair “What could this man possibly have in common with the people, this portly, pretentious bourgeois upstart, frequenting swanky bars, and a man who actually works… And is it not the greatest misery of our time that it is such a man who speaks for the people, who speaks among the people, who speaks about the people?” These words, written by Charles Péguy in his essay L’Argent and addressed to his former mentor Jean Jaurès, apply perfectly to the vast majority of so-called representatives of the people, who seize any opportunity, under any pretext, to defend (?) the “interests” of their electorate. Yet telling the truth – whole truth, nothing but the truth, or even just part of it, however dull, painful, or hard to swallow – does not seem to be part of their creed. But is that really surprising? And should we expect anything better? For three days, we were treated to a performance utterly ludicrous, absurd, grotesque, even shameful – at times verging on a full-blown brawl. No, this was not a Feydeau-style comedy; it was the parliamentary debates over the 2026 budget. Characters spouted platitudes, lies, inaccuracies, and half-truths; others, either to appease the justifiable anger of protesters at the gates of Parliament or to win a few more votes in the next election, proposed without any prior study to raise the salaries of army retirees. And, of course, there were the moralists who seized the floor to declaim nonsense, and those who simply accepted a poorly crafted, unfair, and downright absurd budget, even when their government representatives opposed it. Go figure. All of this unfolded in a barnyard-like chaos, with hens squabbing and clucking while the rooster on his perch seemed utterly overwhelmed – so much so that he ordered the television broadcast cut immediately, either to spare the coop even further humiliation in the eyes of the world, or to slip unpopular decisions through under the radar. In short, it was a veritable cacophony, with everyone clamoring for attention, feigning outrage, gesticulating loudly, and protest vehemently, while the people suffer, bear the brunt, and remain largely silent. “When truth is costly, falsehood becomes effective,” as Plato once said of democracy. Our Parliament of Shame stands as a stark, undeniable proof. An Absurd Spectacle Should we have believed in Santa Claus when the chief of the army arrived in Washington? Or was the mission he was entrusted with doomed from the start, destined to flounder on the banks of the Potomac? Was it a matter of poor preparation, psychological misjudgment, or naïveté on his part – or was it simply a trap into which Heykal fell? Is the Army General Staff so thoroughly infiltrated by Hezbollah, and does any real will to finally stand up to the militia actually exist? There is no doubt that the commander-in-chief’s response to Senator Graham’s question will be subject to multiple interpretations and generate much commentary. Yet, regrettably, it may also pave the way for new problems and serious complications that our country can ill afford. We therefore have the right – if not the duty – to ask ourselves these questions, in light not only of the army’s urgent needs, the credibility and authority of the state, but above all the hope that every sincere Lebanese placed in the success of this mission, which I hope will not end in disappointment. “When someone desires health, one must first ask whether they are ready to remove the causes of their illness,” Hippocrates once said. When seeking the help of others, one cannot afford to be picky or try to outsmart them. A truth as plain as day. Was Graham, in fact, sending a clear message to the Lebanese state through its representative? It would, however, have been easy for the general to respond with tact and skill – several acceptable answers were possible – rather than reacting reflexively to the senator’s trap question, whose position on Israel is well known, a conviction he makes no effort to conceal. Even Darin Lahoud, a congressman of Lebanese origin with Lebanon close to his heart, had been very clear in his remarks regarding Hezbollah. And yet… disaster struck! It is obvious that we have once again missed a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean, assert our genuine will to take our destiny into our own hands, and thus open a more promising new chapter. One can only hope that this surreal spectacle we have witnessed will not have harmful repercussions for all of us. The stakes are nothing less than the fate of a country where corruption and inequality reign, and a population that is impoverished, exhausted, despairing, and at the end of its tether. Skepticism, therefore, remains the order of the day – until further notice. The Tripoli Tragedy What kind of jungle are we living in? Admittedly, we ask ourselves this question every day, but what recently unfolded in Tripoli is not only a human catastrophe – it is above all the result of criminal negligence and rampant corruption at every level. A calamity of this magnitude would have cost many heads in a country that respects itself. Some of our ministers and senior officials should have resigned; others should have been thrown in prison. A sorrowful scene that reflects the country’s profound decay, systemic disintegration, and rampant injustice. Cioran once remarked, with caustic wit, that “what is unfortunate about public misfortunes is that anyone considers themselves competent enough to comment on them.” The city’s MPs are all too quick to take the spotlight, appear on the airwaves, puff out their chests, and accuse the state of negligence. But where were they when tragedy first struck the northern capital a few weeks ago? The same goes for the state itself. The Tripoli millionaires who could have contributed to rehabilitating at-risk buildings were also conspicuously absent. Despite red flags being raised and the looming threat of dozens of houses collapsing, no serious action was taken to address the problem. Nobody lifted a finger. And once again, the city was struck by tragedy on 8 February. Today, the death toll and the number of injured continue to rise, all victims of the irresponsibility and indifference of a sclerotic, rotten administration. At the risk of upsetting all Hezbollah die-hard supporters, it is not enough to appease the inhabitants of the South at the expense of the rest of the country. Certainly, this part of the country, ravaged by the armed militia’s irresponsibility, deserves the state’s attention – but not at the cost of other disaster-stricken regions that also urgently require funds, serious assistance, protection, and governmental care. Tripoli is just one example. Urgency is pressing at the doorstep, and the risks of popular unset, with unpredictable consequences, could soon take the authorities by surprise. Anger is brewing, and this city – long abandoned and deliberately left to its fate – has its voice. Mending the cracks or relying on stopgap measures will longer suffice. A state of emergency and a serious rescue plan to avert the worst are urgently required. Voltaire once considered that “politics is the means by which men and women without principles govern men and women without memory.” I cautiously subscribe to the first part of his observation, while remaining convinced that principled and well-intentioned individuals do exist among us. As for the rest of his insight, I am inclined to agree. Our current political situation provides a perfect illustration: to this day, we keep recycling the same people and starting over. Are we truly so subjugated – or so forgetful? Has the ceaseless desire of our local buffoons to toy with us not already revealed its limits? Isn’t their disastrous performance a matter of reflection? Are we, then, doomed to fall eternally from Scylla into Charybdis? Food for thought.

On the anniversary of Nassib Lahoud's passing, in a country accustomed to consuming its presidents even before putting them to the test, and lowering expectations before raising them, Nassib Lahoud's name remains outside this game of consumption. Not because he disappeared from political life, but because he was present in another way: the presence of an idea, not an agreement; the presence of a project, not a power-sharing arrangement. Thus, every time Lebanon goes through a new presidential crisis, Nassib Lahoud's name resurfaces as that of the “ideal president”; not as a romantic nostalgia, but as a moral and political benchmark, a symbol of what could have been. Nassib Lahoud was not the product of a fleeting moment, nor a candidate of circumstances. He was the product of a well-defined political school: the school of the State. A State of constitution and institutions, not a State of compromise, above or below the table. From his entry into politics, he presented himself as a visionary, not as a man of power. He did not aspire to the presidency as an end in itself, but as a tool for the reconstruction of the State. In a country where the presidency had become a consolation prize or an instrument of obstruction, Lahoud presented it as a sovereign function with clear constitutional guarantees. Nassib Lahoud distinguished himself by three qualities rare in the Lebanese political landscape. The first was clarity. He did not mince his words and did not hide behind vague formulas. On the issue of sovereignty, he was unequivocal: no state possessing weapons outside its control, and no true partnership with an usurped security apparatus. On reforms, he was direct: no economy without an independent judiciary, no social justice without a fair tax system, and no administration without accountability. This clarity made him “unsellable” in a political market that favors ambiguity, as it offers greater room for maneuver. His second quality was independence. Nassib Lahoud owed allegiance to no axis, was prisoner to no power, nor was he subservient to any foreign power. His independence was not a slogan, but a daily practice: it shone through in his positions, his discourse, and his alliances. His name was therefore not forged in the shadows, nor was it propelled by a regional decision. This was precisely both his strength and his weakness: his strength with the people, and his weakness in the face of a system that abhors those who are not accountable. The third characteristic is his political ethics. In a country where politics is practiced according to the logic of domination or blackmail, Lahoud proposed a different model: respect for the adversary, adherence to the Constitution, and the primacy of public interest over personal gain. He was not known for corruption, hidden maneuvers, or resorting to incendiary rhetoric. Because of this, in the eyes of many, he seemed too “idealistic.” But the real question is: did the problem lie in his idealism or in the decline of politics? When his name was seriously considered for the presidency at critical moments, the Lebanese system seemed to reject him outright. Not due to incompetence, but because he was more competent than a system based on mutual obstruction would allow. A president like Nassib Lahoud would have marked the beginning of true accountability, a redefinition of relations between the State and weapons, between the government and the judiciary, and between internal and external affairs. He would also have sounded the death knell for the grey area where an entire system thrives. Today, after the financial collapse, the disintegration of institutions, and the erosion of both national and international trust, Nassib Lahoud appears more relevant than ever in his political career. His ideas on the State, sovereignty, and reform have become evident to a large part of the Lebanese population, who have paid the price for ignoring them. Cruel irony: Lebanon needed this collapse to understand that the “ideal president” was not an intellectual luxury, but an existential necessity. Nassib Lahoud was neither a saint nor infallible. But he was a man of principles. And in politics, principles outweigh tactics. Thus, when we say that Nassib Lahoud remains the ideal president, we are referring not so much to his person as to the model he embodied: a president who does not compromise with the State, does not reduce it to a mere instrument, and does not exploit it. A president who restores meaning to the presidency, prestige to the State, and dignity to the citizen. As long as the system is not mature enough to elect a man like Nassib Lahoud, his name will remain an unrelenting mirror: every president is judged by his measure, and every compromise is laid bare by comparison. Perhaps it is in this lasting symbolic presence that his profound significance lies.

What if Iran were to yield in the face of the massive deployment of American force? What if it chose not to take up the challenge posed by the U.S. fleet now anchoring in what it considers its own waters, those of the Persian Gulf? It would lose face—after having so recently strutted and solemnly proclaimed that it controlled four Arab capitals! Let us not be mistaken: Tehran is now faced with a choice between war and compromise—that is, a retreat that would bring back into fashion the much-criticized gunboat diplomacy, so often denounced in academic circles. This so-called diplomacy, which predates the First World War, consisted of firing from the sea at the coasts of a country deemed to have something to answer for, usually unpaid financial debts. To make an adversary see reason, is it not preferable to resort to bluff or warning shots—that is, a threat not followed by execution—rather than to a military engagement that would be measured in casualties and large-scale destruction? This is precisely the dilemma confronting the ayatollahs today: to make amends, submit, attempt to save face—or otherwise be wiped off the map. Historical precedents The Americans did not invent the use of the “big stick.” In 1793, during the second partition of Poland, Catherine II of Russia surrounded the seat of the Polish Diet. With her cannons trained on the assembly, she imposed her will by force. “The vote was extorted in a silence of terror, as the occupation made any opposition impossible,” we are told. This coercive practice likely did not escape the proponents of the Monroe Doctrine in the United States, and President Theodore Roosevelt could declare, on two occasions in 1904 and 1905, that—even reluctantly—in clear cases of injustice or impotence, the United States had the right to exercise an “international police power.” The New Jersey and the Weinberger Doctrine To be sure, Donald Trump is not about to commit troops to support Iranian demonstrators demanding bread and freedom. That is the least of his concerns. In reality, his objectives are limited to settling the issues of nuclear weapons, missiles, and Iran’s support for proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis—and, behind the scenes, to controlling China’s hydrocarbon supply. Nevertheless, we will not witness this time, as in 1984 off the coast of Beirut, a repeat of the pitiful retreat of the New Jersey . In this case, the Weinberger Doctrine applies—and it is unequivocal: if American troops are to be deployed only as a last resort, then “they must be deployed without reservation and with the clear intention of winning—or not deployed at all.” Moreover, it is understood that the Iranian regime, despite its capacity for disruption, is in no position to withstand an assault by combined American-Israeli forces. It will have to yield, unless it is suicidal. At the end of the ordeal, if it concedes on the nuclear issue or any other point, it will lose its swagger—and might even have to eat humble pie to remain in power. This is where the whimsical Donald Trump can step in and settle for a purely symbolic success—that is, a cheap triumph he can loudly proclaim at will. Hence the concern expressed by Saudi Defense, Minister Khalid bin Salman, who fears that the ayatollahs’ regime might actually emerge strengthened if the United States refrains from going on the offensive. For there is no reason to declare victory if there is no regime change in Tehran. What is the point in taking the same people only to start all over again? In short, without military intervention, Iran will once again have won the round.

Who did not welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro, the dictator who forced eight million of his compatriots, or a quarter of Venezuela's population, into exile? But does this mean that the American administration was within its rights in carrying out this audacious raid in the vicinity of Caracas? According to the 1945 United Nations Charter, which enshrines national sovereignty and guarantees peace between nations, a country can only resort to armed force in two cases: self-defense and the adoption of a Security Council resolution authorizing it. A country can, however, intervene in the territory of another to respond to the urgent request of its legitimate government: Wasn't it that US Marines landed on our shores in 1958 at the request of President Camille Chamoun? Self-defense according to Article 51 Another perspective: Bruno Retailleau, a French senator, approved the January 3 camisade on the pretext that the Venezuelan president had become an accomplice to drug traffickers. In his eyes, the capture of Maduro and his wife by the United States was merely an act of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It is difficult to subscribe to such a thesis: drug trafficking does not constitute, in the eyes of international jurisprudence, an act of “armed aggression” that would justify said self-defense. The Republican leader would have done better to invoke humanitarian intervention, as a Donald Trump, horrified by the repression raging in Iran, would not fail to do. Is there an obligation for states to intervene? Humanitarian intervention cheerfully transgresses the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of a third country, as was the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95) and Kosovo (1999). Military operations were carried out there, not at the request of a legitimate government as in Lebanon in 1958, but AGAINST said government. Jean-Baptiste Vilmer defines this “war in the name of humanity” as: “The use of force by a state with the aim of stopping serious human rights violations against individuals who are not nationals of the intervening state and without the consent of local authorities.” Proponents of this doctrine justify it in the name of urgency. And the United States could proceed in this way in Iran; they could argue the denunciation made by the UN Human Rights Council on January 23 of the “unprecedented repression” exercised in the land of the ayatollahs. As of that date, more than 5,000 deaths and 25,000 arrests led High Commissioner Volker Türk to call on Tehran to reconsider its position and to end its “brutal repression, including summary trials and disproportionate sentences.” However, since then, the death toll has risen and we are talking about more than 30,000 dead! A 'humanitarian strike' in the name of freedom! Can the extent of fundamental rights violations justify humanitarian interference by the American war machine? In theory, intervention is only necessary in the face of massive and uninterrupted human rights violations. If this is not the case, should one refrain from acting until the horror has reached a certain ceiling, for example, 50,000 victims? It is understood that if a “humanitarian strike” were to assist Iranian demonstrators, it would be tainted by some breaches of the rule of law, breaches that punctilious jurists would not hesitate to decry. But what, it is about deliverance and we do not mince words! We do not grant the benefit of the doubt to those who trample on the law, no more than we grant freedom to the enemies of freedom!

The brutal repression unleashed by the mullahs and the Pasdaran to neutralize the courageous revolution of Iranian citizens bears the hallmarks inherent to every dictatorship. More than 30,000 dead, 40,000 imprisoned whose fate remains unknown, an incalculable number of missing persons—and the figures will only rise as the macabre truth gradually comes to light. Very quickly, terror replaced the long-awaited hope for change. Order seems to reign once again, but at what price—and above all, for how long? In the absence of a united opposition, the medieval and corrupt dictatorial regime has free rein to set fire to and spill the blood of anything that moves. Methodically, viciously, savagely, without the slightest scruple. The only lifeline to which the majority of Iranians cling remains a possible American intervention, though no one knows in advance what its consequences might be, either internally or regionally. Admittedly, the fire continues to smolder beneath the ashes, but the blaze will reignite only if the regime, battered by American blows, begins to falter. In the meantime, victims are counted daily, yet the world still does not move. No demonstrations in the streets of major capitals, no student uprisings on university campuses, few forceful interventions by politicians on international television channels—just reproaches, half-hearted condemnations, sterile mood swings. Yet not long ago, the entire world was vibrating for Gaza, also the victim of systematic carnage. Enough to scratch one’s chin and ask questions: double standards? Are there repressions that must be condemned loudly, and others that are acceptable and do not provoke universal rejection? But let us turn to Lebanon. By closely examining the Iranian revolution, let us ask whether the term “thawra” truly fits the events that shook our country in 2019. Is it really appropriate? Is it not somewhat exaggerated? Disproportionate? Even out of context? Certainly, the exasperation of a population worn down by an unbearable cost of living, the immeasurable waste of the state, the glaring absence of justice, creeping corruption, the undeniable lack of services at all levels, and pervasive insecurity fully justified the near-general refusal to be trampled day after day by a failed state. But upon closer examination of those October 2019 days, was it not simply an uprising, a spasm, a jolt that ultimately proved to have no consequences? True, clashes between protesters and security forces—and above all the frenzied, impetuous savagery of Berri’s praetorian guard—caused numerous injuries, some very serious. But unlike the Iranian bloodbath, blood did not flow in torrents. There were no deaths, no massive destruction, no disappearances or arbitrary convictions. In short, a spasm that turned every evening into a popular and musical fair, and that soon fizzled out. One is therefore entitled to ask why Lebanese dissent ran out of steam and went off the rails. To address this, a host of questions come to mind. Does the existence of our local Leviathans depend on our acquiescence in being dominated by them? Are we, for the most part, destined to remain the victims of a pyramidal mafia that cheerfully makes the rain and the sunshine? Do we suffer from Stockholm syndrome? One may advance every possible pretext to explain the failure of 2019 and thus soothe one’s conscience by invariably invoking nepotism, clientelism, confessionalism, the absence of the notion of citizenship, individualism, partisan and communal affiliation, the non-existence of a national narrative, illegal militia armament, the lack of a clear objective, the absence of unified leadership, etc. Yet, in my view, one essential ingredient was missing to overthrow the tyranny of a minority and achieve the change to which every civilized society aspires. The answer may well be provided by La Boétie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude , written between 1546 and 1548: “Be resolved to serve no more, and you are free.” A sentence of implacable clarity. According to the author, tyranny is only possible because the people consent to a servitude whose reason does not lie in a lack of courage, but in an absence of WILL. This severe indictment, still relevant in Lebanon, should give us pause. To defend our freedom, it suffices to stop serving this minority. By ceasing to obey it, it loses its power. As one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, the risks of violence cannot be ruled out. We paid little price for it six years ago, but a harsher and bloodier recurrence must be envisaged if popular will decides to take its destiny into its own hands. To the cynics who would sneer at such remarks, I would reply with an example. We have the opportunity to rally the majority of the people around a common cause, dear to all, that transcends religious and political affiliation. I refer here to the financial scandal that stripped the majority of savers, across all categories. In any other self-respecting country, the street would have delivered a radical verdict had the state not promptly resolved the matter—which is far from being our case. In parliament, a veritable Palace of Shame, we have been lulled with bombastic promises for six years. In government, humiliating and unjust proposals are put forward that disregard our self-respect and our intelligence. If there were a genuine popular and national will to change the situation, we could then speak of a revolution that, this time, should no longer be affected, threatened, or stifled by Hezbollah and other militias that have lost their aura and power to harm. Despite the dangers incurred, armed only with their will, Iranians who have nothing left to lose have courageously embarked on the revolutionary path, thus deserving our consideration and respect. True, they have been temporarily muzzled, but it is only a postponement. Every dictatorship, however ferocious it may be, is doomed in advance to end up in the dustbins of History. In Lebanon, we missed the boat in 2019, and we are still not out of the woods. But it is never too late to do the right thing.

Rarely in the history of humanity has the progressive assault been as preponderant as it is today. During the worst hours of Marxism, the gulags and intellectual terrorism were limited to certain countries or empires, without being able to subjugate the rest of the West. The Soviet empire could only forbid Christian faith, freedom of thought, and cultural heritage in the territories it directly controlled or through interposed vassals. Today, progressive delusion ignites souls in what Leo Strauss would define as a devastating nihilism. It is a plethora of pseudo-intellectuals who seek to deconstruct the human by cleverly questioning all the values that distinguish it. The aim is to transform the human person into an individual stripped of everything that socially and culturally constitutes them. This new man, divested of his bearings, is placed alone before the law, which itself is devoid of any sense of discernment. The progressive lexicon Identity is demonized, heritage is standardized, history is handed over to gravedigger historicism, and truth is relativized. Generalized uncertainty thus inexorably leads to nihilism. The modus operandi of this leftist intellectualism consists of systematic intimidation designed to anticipate and prevent discourses that do not conform to globalist ideology. Its weapon is a specially sharpened lexicon to abort any attempt at debate on subjects elevated to globalism's dogma. The identitarian is then equated with the fascist, rejecting otherness and devoid of humanity. They are constantly adorned with tirelessly repeated attributes that mechanically loop back. It is necessary to denounce this pernicious lexicon in order to unmask it. The expressions that recur most often are those of identitarian withdrawal, tribal behavior, racial fetishism, religious identitarianism, and ethnic identitarianism. The terms confession, clan, tribe, and even nation are always used in a pejorative and humiliating sense. These are contrasted with appealing notions, but emptied of their meaning, as they are detached from reality. These also recur repeatedly: living together, coexistence, inclusivity, and otherness. The nation, assimilated to evil, is to be dissolved, along with its notions of borders, history, and identity. The Christian religion, which founded otherness par excellence, is perceived as an enemy and an obstacle to this otherness. Man is desacralized and daily life is despiritualized. The sacred person is replaced by the consumer and taxpayer individual. The new man, the ideal of woke and liberal progressivism, no longer has a transcendental dimension; he is only evaluated in relation to his performance and his material and caloric needs. Eugenics Wokism is merely the extreme manifestation of this ideology. After denying family, community, country, faith, tradition, and heritage, it pushes to the negation of sexual evidence. It is the rejection of divine creation and even of nature as a manifestation of the divine. It is the contestation of creation, according to Fyodor Dostoevsky. Thus, after killing God, as Martin Heidegger tells us, the nihilist seeks the "death of man". The lexicon of progressive "bien-pensance" continues to grow. Recently, on the social networks of a pseudo-historian, conservatives, identitarians, and federalists were accused of eugenics. Here again, the intellectual short-circuit stems more from ideological discourse than scientific. For eugenics is, above all, a product of progressivism. It rejects creation with its flaws; it wants to perfect it. The new man must be selected down to his genes. Nothing is more opposed to this practice than Christian conservatism. It protects life, prohibits abortion and artificial selection. Christianity sees in the sick person the very face of Christ and His presence manifested by absolute otherness. The Isolationists It is not the first time that progressives project their vices onto conservatives. Haven't they, since 1975, labeled Christian conservatives as isolationists? They fought them militarily and ideologically. And yet, the Lebanon of these so-called isolationists was open to the whole world and to all cultures; that of the progressives was ostracized by the international community, and isolated from both the West and the Arab Gulf countries. Finally, progressives want to be rooted in what they call the Arab East. They claim to be Arabists and open to their natural environment. They accuse conservatives of being utopians artificially oriented towards the West. Here again, discernment would be appropriate. For in reality, conservatives are attached to their Lebanese land, their Levantine belonging, and their Eastern Christian, Antiochian, and Syriac heritage. It is, on the other hand, the progressives who are the most deeply Westernized, as revealed by their integral adoption of the Western ideology par excellence, which is wokism or radical liberalism. This rejection of heritage, as well as self-hatred, are characteristics not found anywhere other than in current Western civilization. Neither the Muslim world nor the Far East experiences such a form of civilizational suicide. This ideology therefore constitutes empirical proof of the Lebanese left's (which claims to be Arab) belonging to the West with its qualities and its vices. Here, in the West, there prevails Benedict XVI tells us, " a form of self-hatred... And one can only describe it as pathological… And this pathology rages throughout the West, carrying away the Levantine coast with it. Faced with this distressing lack of discernment, His Holiness reminds us that " the unification of humanity is not a political task but an eschatological hope, and that to ignore the identity of peoples to merge them into a global mix is a sin of pride, similar to the biblical sin of the Tower of Babel.

What a master of suspense Donald Trump is! In the warm waters of the Gulf as in the frozen lands of Greenland, the American president follows the same pattern: he engineers a stunning event, then scoops up the prize under the stunned gaze of the protagonists. One would be wrong to overlook the histrionic side of the man, who seeks to monopolize attention and to be implored before dispensing his favors. On January 13, he called on Iranian demonstrators to seize control of institutions, assuring them that help was “on the way.” But this promise was nothing more than a damp squib. Three days later, the American president backtracked, seizing upon a hollow pretext: “I greatly respect the fact that all scheduled hangings that were supposed to take place yesterday were canceled by the leaders of Iran. Thank you!” Indeed, he had won his bet: a trophy added to his hunting board—or to his résumé as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. If he had saved lives through mere threat or bluff, why then put other lives at risk by launching a raid? A Well-Crafted Scenario Clever Donald—he really pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes! All the more so as astonished observers continue to believe that he reversed course at the suggestion of his military advisers and under pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf countries. As if the strategists in the White House had not already weighed the pros and cons of a selective bombing campaign in the land of the ayatollahs. In reality, the last-minute interventions were nothing but evasive maneuvers Donald Trump used to avoid taking action, with Netanyahu and MBS extending him a lifeline and pulling him out of trouble. Why be surprised, after all? Did this president not himself tell a journalist: “No one convinced me—I convinced myself”? In truth, with remarkable consistency, Donald Trump has never abandoned the idea that one should never get bogged down in a war. That does not prevent him from pursuing an arms race and making himself feared by all. Will He Strike or Not? In short, Donald Trump will resort to brute force only very rarely—unless his troops are directly targeted. Which is not the case here, since the Iranians are not suicidal! And if, during the latest escalation, the White House ordered the evacuation of certain U.S. bases in the Gulf, it was merely for show. Just another ruse, like the order given to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to head toward the Persian Gulf. As a U.S. Navy source specified, “while the presence of this aircraft carrier is not indispensable to an offensive action, it nonetheless constitutes a strong signal of deterrence and readiness, addressed to both allies and adversaries.” The mood is not one of aggression; yet interference at this level could be justified and considered a humanitarian intervention at a time when unarmed civilians are being killed without mercy. And What About Us Lebanese? Just as Iranian insurgents could not count on an American strike, we free Lebanese cannot count on the fall of the mullahs’ regime to loosen the grip of Hezbollah on the country. It is up to us to reclaim the lost space of our freedoms. So let us take inspiration from the heroism of the insurgents of Tehran, Isfahan, and elsewhere—now that fear has changed sides and tongues are loosening.

Lebanon today stands at a decisive historical crossroads. It has a rare and golden opportunity to rid itself, once and for all, of its most dangerous foe: Hezbollah—the Iranian-backed military organization that has dominated the country’s internal political life for over forty years. Under the false pretext of safeguarding Lebanon’s security and defending it against Israel, Hezbollah has instead brought havoc, destruction, economic collapse, and misery. Its track record clearly demonstrates total incompetence and impotence: it has failed to defend even a single inch of Lebanese territory or to inflict any serious strategic damage on Israel. Yet, despite its flagrant defeat and discomfiture, the organization continues to refuse compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Until now, President Trump’s ideas and diplomatic initiatives aimed at resolving this issue have been met with Hezbollah’s denial and categorical refusal to fully relinquish its military arsenal north of the Litani River. However, this puppet of the Iranian mullah regime now finds itself trapped between a rock and a hard place. Unable to detach itself from its patron, it is equally incapable of justifying to the Shiite community—which it falsely claims to represent—that the dice have been cast, that the winds of change are irreversible, and that the time for peace with Israel has arrived. Decades of unnecessary violence and ideological struggle have yielded nothing but stagnation and regression for Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Arab Gulf states are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, social development, and a brighter future for their younger generations. The hollow pipe dreams of pan-Arab nationalism have been swept aside, replaced by realism, pragmatism, and plain common sense. Undoubtedly, the advent of President Trump represents a major turning point in the Middle Eastern political landscape—and a unique opportunity for Lebanon to finally extricate itself from the vicious grip of the Iranian mullahs and their local proxies. Never before has an American president offered Lebanon, on a silver platter, such a clear chance to turn the page and inaugurate a new and promising chapter for all its citizens. Contrary to the complacency and endless tergiversations of previous Democratic administrations, the current U.S. leadership is determined—even by force if necessary—to impose peace and stability in the region. With the exception of a few rogue states and entities such as Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, and to a lesser extent Iraq, the prevailing regional mood is shifting away from arrogance toward pragmatism. Correcting and dismantling the disastrous and deliberately misguided foreign policies of the Obama administration—policies that emboldened the Iranian regime while alienating the Gulf states—is no easy task. Yet President Trump is undeniably moving in that direction. Parallel to these developments, Lebanon itself has a fundamental role to play if it genuinely wishes to seize this historic opportunity and avoid missing the train set in motion by President Trump. Lebanese authorities—the President and the government—must immediately enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah throughout the country. Doing so would unlock the implementation of other long-overdue and essential reforms. The repeated invocation of a potential civil war is nothing more than a scarecrow, cynically used to mask political weakness and inaction. Failure to act should then compel the population to wake up, take the initiative, and react. We must clean up our own backyard if Lebanon is ever to be taken seriously by the international community. With at least 75% of the population in favor of Hezbollah’s disarmament, a well-organized and highly publicized campaign should be launched without delay. Anti-Hezbollah political parties must be pressured by their own constituents to support—not obstruct—such efforts. For once, the pressure must rise from the grassroots upward, not the other way around. This campaign can take multiple forms and should not be limited to a single course of action: conferences, editorials, podcasts international media outreach meetings with foreign embassies marches and protests under the protection of the Lebanese Army Lebanon is rich in independent talent willing to contribute to such an effort. However, this will require funding, coordination, and sustained commitment over the long term. Should all of the above fail, civil disobedience must become the people’s credo: refusal to pay taxes, boycotts of public administrations, work stoppages, and sustained pressure on the political establishment. Our collective will must prevail if Lebanon is ever to see the light again. Finally, a fundamental question remains unanswered: will Iran relinquish its megalomaniacal ambitions and order Hezbollah to step aside once and for all—or will it, together with its proxy, suffer yet another historic defeat at the hands of Israel and the US ? The aftermath of the last Trump–Netanyahu meeting will undoubtedly shed light on the course of events to come.

There are ample reasons to recoil from the term debellatio. This barbaric legal concept denotes, in international law, the subjugation of a state and its eradication through armed violence. It refers to a situation of complete military, political, and legal annihilation of a given country as a result of devastating warfare—such as that experienced by Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars, or Nazi Germany at the fall of Berlin in May 1945. And what about Lebanon? Is it not at risk of meeting a similar fate, supposedly in the name of the “acts of resistance” of the Hezb? Normalization, but at what cost? Does this mean that the Abraham Accords, in order to bind our country to their triumphant convoy, require a prior debellatio—that is, the subjugation of recalcitrant territories to the pax americana? These international agreements, concluded in 2020 between Israel and several Gulf states, indeed set in motion a process of diplomatic, economic, and security normalization between Arab regimes and the Hebrew state. In doing so, they relegated to fierce opposition the advocates of the so-called “axis of resistance” (al-mumana‘a), namely Iran and its three “H’s”: Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah.* Once this process was launched, Lebanon would sooner or later be forced to choose its path. Yet the Hezb cannot accommodate such an “expedient,” which takes no account of the interests of its Iranian patron. It will therefore play the role of the spoiler, preventing any forward movement until a compromise is reached between the United States and the Islamic Republic of the mullahs—if such a compromise ever materializes. Needless to say, in the ongoing arm-wrestling match, Iran’s nuclear program has already supplanted the Palestinian question, now relegated to the sidelines. Natanz, Fordow, and other nuclear sites have become the principal stumbling blocks on the road to regional de-escalation. A paradigm shift Let us restate the issue: if the Abraham Accords threaten to cost us dearly as Lebanese, it is because they steer us toward normalization—something that would “upend the traditional balance based on Arab solidarity,” a solidarity cemented by hostility toward Israel. In short, were these Accords to be implemented, they would usher in a genuine paradigm shift. That said, the Hezb, which holds the Lebanese state by the throat, cannot come to terms with abandoning armed struggle. Unless it receives a direct order from Tehran, it will not lay down its weapons: they constitute its very raison d’être and define its modus operandi. From its recalcitrant perspective, it is preferable to resist in support of Iran, and to embrace the martyrdom of Gaza, rather than submit to the demands of peace. The allure of ruins One nuance, however: with regard to the Hezb, the concept of debellatio can only be invoked metaphorically. From a legal standpoint, it does not apply, since the Party of God is not a state, but merely a politico-military organization. Yet this valid objection is, in reality, little more than a rhetorical dodge. For it overlooks the fact that this Iranian-backed party has penetrated and entrenched itself at every level of Lebanese state. In its escalation, might it not be tempted to drag our country into a maelstrom—an impetuous whirlpool that sweeps everything in its path? Whether in the form of a direct clash with Israel, a confrontation with the Syrian regime, or, worse still, a senseless and devastating civil war. The Hezb’s fascination with rubble hardly needs to be emphasized. * Syria no longer appearing on the list of subservient actors.