Lebanon today stands at a historic crossroads — not only as a result of the accumulation of economic and financial crises, but due to a profound disruption in the very concept of sovereignty itself. The state, which is supposed to monopolize decisions of war and peace, has become a hostage to a reality imposed by the force of arms, where external agendas advance at the expense of the national interest.

Amid the region’s accelerating transformations — from the redrawing of power balances to the shifting priorities of the great powers — Lebanon appears still trapped in outdated equations, unable to keep pace with the moment. While the region moves toward new arrangements based on stability and economic integration, some insist on keeping Lebanon an open arena for conflicts, as if time has not moved forward.

This force, which is not an essential internal power but rather Iranian mercenaries lying in wait for the country, places Lebanon in perpetual confrontation with its surroundings and with the international community, preventing any serious path toward recovery or peace.

At the level of authority, a clear contradiction emerges between rhetoric and practice. There are repeated affirmations of commitment to the state’s choices and sovereignty, yet without practical steps to translate this commitment into action. The President of the Republic expresses a desire to restore the state’s standing, and the Prime Minister reiterates adherence to international legitimacy; however, the absence of decisive action makes these positions closer to statements of intent than to executable policy.

As for the forces tied to the Iranian project, they continue to work toward disrupting any truly sovereign path — benefiting from a network of internal and external interests, and from the international community’s hesitation to impose radical solutions. The goal is clear: to keep Lebanon within the axis of conflict, not within the system of stability.

With this awareness emerges an opportunity to reshape national priorities, on the basis of restoring the state’s full decision-making authority. Lebanon’s future will not be built on slogans, but on tough decisions that redefine the relationship between the state and arms, and between the internal and the external.

Either the Lebanese choose the path of genuine sovereignty and engagement in the region’s new transformations, or they remain captives of a reality managed from beyond their borders.