Politics

Sylviane Zehil, New York The first color-coded ballot, held at the Security Council on 16 October, exposed the major powers’ opposition to the three frontrunners in the race to succeed António Guterres. None can now be sure of clearing the veto hurdle. With less than three months remaining before the deadline, diplomatic maneuvering is intensifying as the Trump administration seeks to influence the choice of a secretary-general capable of bringing about far-reaching change at the United Nations. In New York, the race to succeed António Guterres has reached a decisive turning point. The red ballots have spoken but have not revealed everything. For the first time since the selection process began, the five permanent members of the Security Council have made their opposition to the leading contenders for the UN’s top job more apparent.

Some journeys end when you return to the airport. Others truly begin only after you come back. Weeks have passed since our visit to Rome, yet many details have stayed with me. It was a short visit, but it made me look at Lebanon from a different distance. Who Opened Rome’s Doors to Us? Behind this visit was an effort that deserves to be acknowledged. Bernard Selwan Khoury and Jessie Karam played a central role in organizing the meetings and opening doors for us in Rome, through a program that was not merely a series of protocol appointments, but an attempt to bring a different Lebanese voice into academic, political and Vatican circles.

From New York, Sylviane Zehil As France holds the presidency of the UN Security Council in September, the General Assembly’s “high-level week” is taking place against a backdrop of existential crises and growing questioning of multilateralism. In this context, Paris intends to defend an international system “based on the rule of law rather than the law of the strongest.” Among the sensitive issues on the agenda is Lebanon, with an increasingly pressing question: what should be done about UNIFIL and, above all, how can a “security vacuum” be avoided if its mandate cannot be extended for the long term?

The abolition of the death penalty in Lebanon is not the result of steps taken in 2026. It is the culmination of a long political and legal process, marked by successive initiatives, deadlocks and years of debate. Two figures in particular led this fight: former Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar and former MP and Lebanese Forces executive council member Élie Keyrouz. For Najjar, it all began in 2008, when he was appointed justice minister. As for Keyrouz, his campaign notably took shape through a bill he submitted in 2012. It would be 14 years before Lebanon finally abolished capital punishment. Much would change between these two milestones, in 2008 and 2012, but their convictions would remain unchanged.

Levant Time received the following statement from the family of the late former minister and MP Hassan Rifaï, who passed away on September 3, 2025. We reproduce it in full: On the first anniversary of Hassan Rifaï’s passing, a man who devoted most of his life to defending Greater Lebanon, and at a time when debate is intensifying over the need to amend Lebanon’s political system, it is important to recall some of his reflections and positions on the Taif Agreement and the constitutional amendments that stemmed from it. 1. The Taif Agreement is a Syrian-American agreement concluded under an Arab umbrella, in terms that were for the most part Lebanese. (1989)

The image of Israeli flags fluttering over Beaufort Castle is painfully striking. It is as painful as those of villages completely or partially destroyed, or families decimated. It is as violent as videos of desperate Southerners trying to salvage what they can before the next merciless volley of missiles, who risk death to feed herds and pets abandoned by their owners, who cry out their anger, frustration, and despair at a war that nothing could justify. The banners on Beaufort and the unbearable Israeli triumphalism that followed the seizure of this strategic archaeological site hit like a punch. Because they recalled the machinery of pointless wars in which Lebanon has been trapped for decades, caught in a time loop of a bad movie.

After more than five weeks of war, Washington and Tehran have agreed on a two-week ceasefire in exchange for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, just over an hour before the expiration of Donald Trump's ultimatum threatening to destroy the Islamic Republic. Tehran indicated at dawn on Wednesday that talks would take place starting Friday with Washington. These discussions will be held in Pakistan, a key mediator in the Middle East war. Israel has accepted the ceasefire with Iran, according to a White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. "Following discussions with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, during which they asked me to suspend the military intervention planned for tonight against Iran, and provided that the Islamic Republic of Iran accepts the TOTAL, IMMEDIATE and SECURE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend bombings and attacks against Iran for a period of two weeks," the American president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

It all goes back to 1998 — May 30 to be precise, the date on which Pakistan conducted its last nuclear test in the sands of Kharan, in Balochistan. The program, from the bomb to its entire development chain, had been financed by Saudi Arabia, with American and Israeli approval. Both capitals had consented to Islamabad joining the nuclear club in order to establish a strategic counterweight in the India-China-Pakistan triangle, at a time when Beijing and New Delhi had already crossed the threshold of nuclear armament. It was then that speculation multiplied around Iran's intention to develop a military nuclear program under civilian cover — a prospect that Tel Aviv and Washington deemed unacceptable. The Pakistani bomb, Sunni, was meant to impose a balance in the Far East; an Iranian bomb, Shia, would create an unprecedented balance of power in the Middle East, a region where Israel considers itself the foremost strategic actor. The directive imposed itself: Iran could not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Tehran, for its part, never ceased to reaffirm the peaceful nature of its ambitions, with no military objectives in this domain.

On 28 February, thunder rolled across the world – an abrupt and violent movement. Brutal, certainly. Unexpected? Not quite. The event had long been anticipated – yet its timing, scale and objectives remained unknown. The date is now clear. The scale, however, is still uncertain. As for the objectives – what do they mean for Israel and for the United States? Given the stance of the mollah regime toward Israel – and the foundations of power it has built at great expense to pursuit the goal of eradicating the country and paralyzing Lebanon – Israel is fighting for its survival. So, too, does Benjamin Netanyahu. The objective that follows is stark: eradication.

Between the lessons of history and the pressures of war, the same question recurs: can an exhausted state defer its ultimate defeat through a difficult settlement, or does an agreement concluded under an imbalanced power dynamic end up weighing on sovereignty and stability for years to come? When states enter the hour of existential peril, the question is no longer how to win, but how to prevent total collapse. In this sense, the Lebanese debate currently unfolding around the initiative launched by President Joseph Aoun to open a path toward direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under international sponsorship goes far beyond the boundaries of ordinary political controversy, and raises a deeper question concerning the limits of what realism can achieve when the state itself is threatened in its cohesion and its capacity to survive.