By Dr. Farid Jabbour
Montreal, Canada
June 18, 2026
The greatest danger is for a settlement to emerge in a dual formula: an incomplete Israeli withdrawal, extensive security arrangements inside Lebanon, and a ceasefire conditioned on Israel’s ongoing assessment of perceived threats.
Such a formula does not create peace; rather, it produces an uneasy truce. In some cases, it can be even more dangerous than war itself, because it shifts the conflict from a clear military confrontation into an ambiguous legal framework that allows repeated acts of aggression under the pretext of implementing the agreement.
A U.S.–Iran agreement could represent an opportunity for Lebanon if it is used to compel Israel to withdraw and halt its violations. However, it could also become a danger if Lebanon is reduced to a secondary clause within a broader regional bargain.
For this reason, Lebanon’s national interest requires neither completely separating itself from the region—which is unrealistic—nor becoming entirely tied to it, which would deprive it of independent decision-making. The preferable path is for Lebanon to remain part of a framework of guarantees, not part of a framework of trade-offs.
Sovereignty is not protected through isolation, nor preserved by dissolving into the deals of others. It is safeguarded through a clear national position that transforms regional circumstances into an opportunity, without allowing them to swallow Lebanon’s independent decision-making.