Opinion

At every decisive moment in Lebanon’s history, the same rhetoric resurfaces: threats to bring down the government, warnings of yet another collapse, and an escalating political confrontation. Yet the question is no longer whether Nabih Berri can topple the government. The real question has become far simpler: what comes next? What is the alternative? What vision does he offer for Lebanon? And how is the country expected to emerge from its crisis if it once again slips into the vicious cycle of political and institutional paralysis? If opposition to the framework agreement genuinely stems from a desire to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty, then those who reject it should put forward a clear, realistic and workable alternative. Simply calling for the government’s downfall without presenting the slightest roadmap offers the Lebanese nothing but deeper uncertainty.

Every time Lebanon edges closer to a serious attempt at restructuring its relationship with its surroundings and with itself, a ready-made narrative resurfaces, reducing every negotiation process to a matter of 'surrender.' This label is no longer a simple political disagreement — it has become a tool for systematically blocking any process that could rehabilitate the very notion of statehood. Even more troubling, it is used to strip the state of its own legitimacy whenever it performs its natural role: negotiating and making decisions. The proposed framework agreement is not a surrender. On the contrary: it represents an advanced attempt to reintegrate Lebanon into the circle of states that hold sovereign decision-making power exclusively through their institutions — not through parallel power centers or entities operating outside the state.

In the aftermath of the disastrous June 1967 war—the so-called Six-Day War—the Arab countries were forced to confront a bitter reality: Egypt had lost the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula; the Hashemite Kingdom had been stripped of Jerusalem and the West Bank; while Syria had ignominiously withdrawn from the Golan Heights. Yet the Baath regime in Damascus, refusing to assume responsibility for a historic defeat, suggested that Israel had not truly won as long as it had failed to overthrow the Syrian regime. As long as the regime remained standing, Tel Aviv could not claim victory. This attitude of denial would set a precedent whenever the Arabs suffered a Waterloo. And so, true to form, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, raising his voice despite the retreat, proclaimed on the eve of Ashura commemorations the victory of the Party of God “against the conspiracy woven by the alliance of the United States and Israel, under the cover provided by the Lebanese state.”

Major crises reveal a simple truth: no country can endure when loyalties that transcend it remain stronger than the sense of belonging to it. Nations that overcome adversity are those that make national identity the common ground uniting all their citizens, regardless of their political, religious, or cultural affiliations. The nation does not erase diversity. It provides the framework that protects it. That lesson has become particularly clear in Iran’s recent evolution, where national and patriotic discourse has gained renewed momentum by embracing groups that, until recently, had been regarded as lying outside the circle of political loyalty. The authorities have come to understand that existential challenges require widening the circle of belonging, for a state’s strength is measured not only by the cohesion of its governing institutions, but also by its ability to embrace society in all its diversity.

Roger Barake's article "Storm Warning in the European Sky" - Levant Time, June 13, 2026 - presents the stated reasons for the abandonment of the FCAS project (Future Combat Air System). This article offers a particular perspective by depicting Franco-German relations as they are perceived by many French people. It sheds specific light on this regrettable abandonment. Here are some illuminating excerpts from the introduction of the aforementioned article: "The program's failure immediately reignited criticism targeting Dassault Aviation and its CEO, Éric Trappier. In certain German and European political circles, the head of the French aircraft manufacturer is portrayed as one of the main figures responsible for the deadlock. His detractors accuse him of having championed an overly nationalistic vision of the program, incompatible with the logic of European cooperation.

Every time Hezbollah faces a political, military, or popular crisis, its leaders return to the same lexicon: resistance, victory, sovereignty, the rejection of any tutelage. Heavy words, charged with strong emotion, yet losing more of their persuasive power among the Lebanese with each passing day, as the gap between the rhetoric and the reality keeps widening. In his latest speech, Hezbollah's secretary general, Sheikh Naim Qassem, claimed that the Party remained faithful to the Taif Agreement and the Lebanese Constitution, that its weapons were aimed at Israel, and that it was facing projects of foreign allegiance and tutelage. A statement that appears coherent at first glance, but collapses the moment it meets the facts.

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?

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.

At the very moment that a conference was being held in Paris at the French National Assembly, giving a voice to our free Shiite fellow citizens*, a village in southern Lebanon, perched 180 meters above sea level, was making itself remembered. On Friday, June 5, a spirit of defiance arose in Baysarieh: a scuffle broke out between local residents - mostly Twelver Shiites and supporters of Nabih Berri - and Hezbollah militants who wanted to install rocket launchers in the middle of the village. The Lebanese Army had to intervene to separate the opposing sides and restore order. A video captured the collective clash which, in a supreme irony, took place in a street adorned with pistachio-green banners bearing the colors of the Amal Movement!

The world today seems caught between the fever of the World Cup and the social media posts of American President Donald Trump, with all the immediate repercussions these carry for the violent swings in oil and gold prices, and for the considerable profits reaped by the speculations tied to them. Yet this media “noise” conceals behind it shifts that are deeper and more consequential, manifest in the redrawing of the network of regional and international alliances, driven by the accelerating fallout from the confrontation underway between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran and its ramifications on the other.