Inside the Mar‑a‑Lago summit shaping the next Middle East crisis

from Iran’s missiles to Lebanon’s fight for statehood

By Charbel A. Antoun

As December 29 approaches, the meeting between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu at Mar‑a‑Lago lands at a moment when the Middle East feels one miscalculation away from a regional firestorm. Behind the Palm Beach optics lies a far more consequential agenda: Iran’s accelerating missile production, its revived nuclear infrastructure, and the widening arc of proxy power stretching from Yemen to Lebanon.

The Missile Equation

Israel’s latest intelligence paints a stark picture: Iran’s missile factories in Isfahan and Semnan — damaged in earlier Israeli strikes — are back online and operating at full speed. Production estimates now reach thousands of precision‑guided warheads per month, a pace that outstrips Israel’s interceptor capacity and strains U.S. resupply timelines.

Netanyahu is expected to push for regular, U.S.-supported strikes to keep Iran’s production lines in check. Trump may instead favor a single, high‑impact operation aimed at disrupting Iran’s command structure. Both approaches carry risks: Iran’s proxies — from the Houthis in the Red Sea to Hezbollah in Lebanon — have already demonstrated their ability to widen any confrontation into a regional crisis.

Nuclear Shadows and Air Defense Gaps

Beyond missiles, Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz have shown renewed activity. Satellite imagery suggests accelerated enrichment work, despite earlier damage. These developments expose a strategic dilemma: Israel’s ability to strike hardened sites is limited without U.S. intelligence and air‑defense coordination.

Any discussion of “red lines” will intersect with broader bargaining. Trump is likely to seek movement on Gaza stabilization and Saudi normalization as part of any security commitments.

Hezbollah: Lebanon’s Central Vulnerability

For Lebanon, the most immediate escalation risk is Hezbollah’s armed dominance — the only non‑state army in the region capable of dragging an entire country into a war it did not choose. Diplomatic talk of “containing” Hezbollah’s weapons by relocating heavy missiles or limiting precision systems is not a solution; it is a geographic reshuffling of the threat, not its removal.

The clearer policy line emerging in Washington points toward full disarmament and sovereignty restoration, not management. As U.S. envoy Mark Savaya recently wrote regarding Iraq’s militias, “Disarmament must be comprehensive, irreversible, and implemented through a clear and binding national framework… including the full dismantling of all armed factions and an orderly, lawful transition of their members into civilian life.” Applied to Lebanon, this principle is existential: Hezbollah’s weapons are not just military assets — they are political instruments that veto governments, block reforms, and define the limits of national decision‑making. Without restoring the state’s monopoly on force, Lebanon remains the first arena of any regional escalation.

The Diplomatic Chessboard

Netanyahu’s broader strategy extends beyond military options. He aims to revive and expand the Abraham Accords, positioning them as a regional counterweight to Iran.

Lebanon is now engaged in direct negotiations with Israel under U.S. mediation, a historic step that could reshape the country’s future. But everyone involved understands a hard truth: no agreement — not borders, not security arrangements, not economic normalization — can be implemented while Hezbollah maintains an independent army and a veto over the state. As long as an Iranian‑backed militia holds the power to ignite or block war, Lebanon cannot enter any binding peace framework. The path to stability runs through one principle: restoring the state’s monopoly on force, not managing or relocating Hezbollah’s arsenal.

Share

Comments

Add your comment