Strategia

This series of articles will allow for a better understanding of the current situation in light of the past, moving beyond impassioned, ideological, or romanticized rhetoric that misses the mark, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, it is high time to seriously counter the sterile rhetoric of resistance, not with counter-rhetoric, but with serious work by promoting the rule of law, which can only be established through sovereignty. In the previous four installments, we revisited the events that shaped Hezbollah’s rise following the Taif Agreement, its first two wars with Israel, and the grinding war of attrition it has waged for more than a decade.

In a forthcoming series of articles, we intend to shed light on the current situation through the lens of history, steering clear of impassioned, ideological, or romanticized narratives that overlook the realities on the ground. Our aim is to give readers the tools to draw their own conclusions. In this context, it is high time to seriously challenge the sterile rhetoric of “resistance” – not with counter-rhetoric, but through a deeper approach that champions the rule of law, which can only be built on sovereignty. The first three articles presented a reinterpretation of the events surrounding Hezbollah's rise to power, from the Taif Agreement through Operation “Settling of Accounts” and the “July Agreement” (1993), up to the eve of its second war with Israel.

A growing number of Western analysts contend that the United States has failed to achieve its objectives in the war with Iran. This assessment is largely driven by the surge in global oil prices, which has rippled through the global economy and is being felt acutely in the rising cost of everyday goods in the United States – a recurring theme in the American press. For these same observers, Iran appears to hold the stronger hand in ongoing negotiations. But how accurate is that view? A Closer Look at the War’s Underlying Motives George Friedman, a geopolitical analyst, says he is not convinced that Benjamin Netanyahu was able to draw Donald Trump into the war. Not only, he argues, is the latter difficult to persuade, but Iran’s nuclear program is of far greater concern to the United States than to Israel.

The 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS) is centered on the "America First" principle and demands greater strategic autonomy from its European allies, whom President Donald Trump is pressing to take charge of their own defense on their continent. Washington would thus have its hands free to focus first on its domestic situation and on the American continent, infiltrated by China and Russia, and then on the Pacific Basin. To this end, it needs to reduce its involvement in the Middle East and keep it sustainably stable. For this purpose, the definitive neutralization of the threat from Iran and Hezbollah is essential. A weakened Iran would pave the way for an unprecedented expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.

In a forthcoming series of articles, we intend to shed light on the current situation through the lens of history, steering clear of impassioned, ideological, or romanticized narratives that overlook the realities on the ground. Our aim is to give readers the tools to draw their own conclusions. In this context, it is high time to seriously challenge the sterile rhetoric of “resistance” – not with counter-rhetoric, but through a deeper approach that champions the rule of law, which can only be built on sovereignty. To understand the present, few things are as revealing as revisiting contemporary history, which continues to shape collective memory. The wars between Israel and Hezbollah deserve a closer look – beginning with the first conflict in 1993, along with the key events that preceded it, not to mention Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on 25 May 2000, and the preceding and subsequent events, including the wars of 1996, 2006, 2023–2024, and 2026.

In a series of articles, we aim to shed light on the current situation in light of the past, moving beyond impassioned, ideological, or romanticized rhetoric that misses the mark and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. In this context, it is high time to seriously counter the sterile rhetoric of resistance, not with counter-rhetoric, but with an in-depth approach that champions the rule of law, which can only be built upon sovereignty. The first two articles presented a reinterpretation of the events surrounding Hezbollah's rise to power, from the Taif Agreement through Operation "Settling of Accounts" and the "July Agreement" (1993), up to the eve of its second war with Israel.

In Lebanon, the ceasefire proclaimed by Donald Trump, which came into effect on Thursday night to Friday, and President Joseph Aoun's message to the nation on Friday, applauded by sovereignist leaders and many editorialists alike, have rekindled public hope. Hezbollah was quick to vehemently criticize the presidential speech, even resorting to threats, although its name was not explicitly mentioned once. This speech, commendable in itself, however, recalls the inauguration speech of January 9, 2025, which has still not been implemented. Donald Trump will invite President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for direct negotiations.

This series of articles will allow for a better understanding of the current situation in light of the past, moving beyond impassioned, ideological, or romanticized rhetoric that misses the mark, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, it is high time to seriously counter the sterile rhetoric of resistance, not with counter-rhetoric, but with serious work by promoting the rule of law, which can only be established through sovereignty. The first part outlined the international and regional situation that led to the Taif Agreement and the beginning of Hezbollah's rise to power. This second part illustrates how the Hezbollah militia has continued to exist and strengthen itself under the dual sponsorship of Syria and Iran. Damascus's goal is to strengthen its position at the peace negotiation table with Israel, while Tehran's is to undermine any attempt at peace between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other.

In this fifth week of the Iran war, President Trump's statements are equivocal. So are those of Iranian leaders. Only the Israeli position is clear: priority to military and security imperatives. Information from the theater of operations, and sociopolitical analyses in the three belligerent states, come mainly from the press. The sources cited are often biased, and highlight only a part of the facts that serve the theses of their authors. It must be noted that the majority of the Western print media and audiovisual media insist more on the costs of the war than on its strategic outcome, which cannot be purely political or purely military, but must constitute a unique strategic synthesis. The military implements its own strategy to serve national objectives. Decision-makers do the same at the political level. An assessment of this campaign should take all of this into account.

In which direction is the war between the United States and Israel, on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other, heading? This is a question that arises daily since the start of military operations, and to which many analysts and politicians, playing the soothsayers, have already hastily responded with certainty. However, it would be necessary to acquire a set of concrete data, difficult to obtain, in order to have precise answers to this question. It must be noted in this context that one often takes one's desires for realities, and analysts sometimes describe their own thoughts rather than analyzing tangible facts.