Opinion

If the rumors are to be believed, there will be nothing serious to report in the coming weeks. For, if one trusts Abbas Araghtchi's statements, Tehran and Washington would have reached, during their talks in Geneva, a broad agreement on a set of 'guiding principles, on the basis of which they will advance and begin to work on the text of a potential agreement'. In the meantime, Iran is rearming itself with weapons and ammunition, which is not reassuring to Israel, the latter demanding, moreover, that the ongoing talks go beyond the strict framework of nuclear issues to include the two questions of missiles and proxies.

The cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground off Giglio Island after hitting underwater rocks on January 13, 2012. (Filippo Monteforte/AFP) Imagine, as the Costa Concordia cruise ship was sinking in 2012, the restaurant manager asking passengers not to forget to pay their bill. Absurd? Yet, that is, more or less, the logic adopted by our government. In a country paralyzed by crisis, where only inflation is progressing, the State, desperately seeking to finance salary increases for its civil servants and more or less adapted pensions for retired military personnel, has found the solution: increase VAT by 1% and tax gasoline by three hundred thousand pounds per can.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!”