Yes, the war has begun—and no one in Lebanon wanted it (except for a very small minority).
Yes, the war has begun—one that no rational political leader at the global level had expected.
The question is: Did the United States need a president like Trump to do what no president over the past four decades has done? In our view, yes.
Obama, Bush, Biden, and others would not have dragged America into such unpredictable choices. Despite their strong support for Israel, their party affiliations and institutional constraints would have prevented them from making such unilateral decisions.
What Trump has done stems largely from a narcissistic personality—one that seeks spectacle and wants to say: I am here, I do what I want, and the world follows me. Just days before launching the first military strikes on Iran, both internal and international reports pointed to breakthroughs in nuclear negotiations. So what pushed the U.S. and Israel to strike? Was it the element of surprise—seizing the moment while Trump and Netanyahu still hold power? A decision appears to have been made: to “cleanse” the region for the next fifty years and reduce resistance forces to near zero. This trajectory began in 2023 with the Gaza war. One day, the real reasons behind the security failure that allowed “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” will be revealed—an event that led to the total devastation of Gaza and left unanswered questions about its future and its people. The war also resulted in the assassination of key leaders—from political leader Ismail Haniyeh to military commander Yahya Sinwar—in scenes that will remain etched in memory for years. Lebanon became involved in the war in support of Gaza, accumulating heavy losses internally. Hezbollah lost much of its military elite, its long-standing Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, his successor Safi al-Din, and a significant portion of its arsenal after exposure of its weapons stockpiles. This coincided with the historic سقوط of the Assad regime, whose leader fled to Russia with his wealth. With the fall of the Syrian regime, Hezbollah’s supply line collapsed, leaving it dependent only on sea routes. Two years have passed as if they were decades. Anyone following global politics understands that what has happened is not ordinary—it is the drawing of a long-term geopolitical map. In late 2024, Lebanon witnessed a ceasefire agreement with Israel under UN sponsorship. However, it remained fragile, with continued violations—assassinations, airstrikes, and warnings about Hezbollah’s activities. The Lebanese side did not respond militarily, nor did it succeed in disarming Hezbollah north of the Litani River, despite obligations under international resolutions and internal challenges. Everything remained unstable—until the attack on Iran. A rocket salvo from southern Lebanon followed, even if it did not hit a clear target in Israel. But it was enough to reopen the gates of hell, dragging Lebanon back into a war that increasingly resembles a third world war. From a Lebanese perspective, this decision contradicts national consensus, the 1949 armistice agreement, international resolutions—especially 1701—and the Lebanese Constitution, which requires a two-thirds government majority to declare war. None of that occurred. Where are we heading now? We are facing what appears to be a reckless decision to complete a plan aimed at eliminating resistance in favor of Israeli security for decades to come. This is an open-ended war with no clear timeline or objectives—except: Limiting Iran’s capabilities Eliminating Hezbollah’s weapons Possibly launching a ground invasion to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon Iran is now playing all its cards. This is the final stage—whoever endures longer will shape the next agreement. All previous warnings have materialized: Iran striking U.S. interests in the الخليج Global النفط markets and trade being affected Red lines have collapsed. The question is no longer if a major war will happen—but how far it will go. Will Iran’s allies remain neutral? Will Europe stay out? How will Trump deal with them if they refuse support? Will Trump and Netanyahu continue to dominate global decisions? Domestically, both leaders face pressure. In the U.S., the upcoming midterm elections will be decisive, reflecting public sentiment and shaping Congress. War costs—approaching $1 billion per day—will weigh heavily on voters, who care more about their economy than foreign policy. In Israel, Netanyahu faces internal strain as casualties and damage increase, with elections approaching in October. This suggests we may be heading toward a decisive period within three to four months. Key factors that could accelerate an agreement: Rising costs and internal pressure in the U.S. and Israel Iran and Hezbollah’s ability to withstand attacks Preventing a ground invasion of southern Lebanon Continued effectiveness of Iranian missile strikes So far, the U.S.-Israeli alliance has not succeeded in toppling the Iranian regime, nor has internal unrest in Iran led to the expected انقلاب. Hezbollah has not been disarmed internally, raising the question: could there be a UN-imposed solution? Where is the United Nations in all this? The Security Council currently lacks the ability to stop the war due to the U.S. veto. Attempts at mediation continue, but their effectiveness is limited. Trump, having reduced UN funding, understands its limitations—hence efforts to create parallel frameworks. This brings us back to a central issue: narcissism in leadership. In an age of artificial intelligence and global interconnectedness, should the world return to unilateralism and concentrated power? Should global leadership rest in the hands of figures like Trump and Netanyahu? And should Iran continue to threaten global security without binding agreements? We are racing against time. But one certainty remains: a solution must emerge before total catastrophe. In the darkest night, the question remains: Who will restore balance, security, and peace to the world?
Lecturer in Media and Political Communication
