Lebanon: Between “Kissinger’s Sin” and the Brilliance of Foundation**

By: Naji Ali Amhez

Today’s imperative is not the protection of a particular sect; Lebanon is far too grand, too ancient, and too deeply rooted in the consciousness of the East to be reduced to a single faction or denomination. The true priority is to protect the national entity, safeguard the profound “secrets of its independence,” and defend the miracle that has kept this nation standing despite the Great Earthquake currently shaking the region—an earthquake expected to intensify and continue until 2030.

Lebanon today lives under an exceptional “universal shield.” Despite the ongoing and widely rejected Israeli aggressions, the relative stability Lebanon enjoys—compared to the surrounding inferno—is nothing short of a miracle produced by the historic Lebanese intellect: a mind capable of inventing life from the heart of nothingness, and maintaining balance while standing in the very eye of the storm.

Since July 2025, media platforms have echoed with the drums of war. Analysts competed in drafting scenarios of “imminent ruin,” and even some officials joined the chorus. Yet in September of that same year, I wrote with clarity: “There will be no war on Lebanon before mid‑2026,” barring any positive breakthroughs. With the same confidence, I settled the debate regarding the Iranian‑Israeli conflict in August 2025, confirming that the prospects of a direct war between them had ended until at least 2050.

The clearest evidence of Israel’s inability to engage in an all‑out war with Iran is the direct American intervention today—just as Washington intervened yesterday to save Israel from a confrontation it could not sustain. As for the analyses linking the release of the “Epstein files” to pressure on President Trump to launch a war, such readings are superficial. Leverage lies in the threat of publication, not in publication itself; once the scandal becomes public, the card loses its power.

The core of the American movement toward Tehran is not to “eliminate the Shia,” as some imagine. Rather, it is an attempt to transform Iran from a bitter foe into a necessary ally, following the strategic logic:
“When I turn my enemies into friends, I have defeated them.”

Israel understands that transforming the Shia into allies of Washington would diminish its own functional role and marginalize other regional powers. Just as America abandoned the Maronites in 1976 in favor of Syria—under the logic of “demographics and influence”—it will not hesitate today to trade seven million Israelis for two hundred million Shia if that ensures the flow of gas, contains Russian influence, and keeps the region under total American control.

Washington, which dismantled the Soviet Union, will not allow Russia to establish itself in the Mediterranean through the Syrian gateway. It succeeded in dragging Moscow into the Ukrainian war, leading Russia to realize that the solution to its crisis begins in Washington, not Europe. Consequently, Russia refrained from aiding its Shia allies in Lebanon and contributed to the fall of the current Syrian regime in exchange for a ceasefire in Ukraine and the securing of its own interests.

President Trump’s actions are not a “personal invention.” Great powers are not led by individuals, regardless of their charisma or unpredictability; they are driven by global decisions that begin in Asia and ripple across continents, reaching even the “Virtual Continent”—the world of the internet.

We are witnessing the practical application of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.” The Middle East is being redrawn into massive ethnic and religious blocs within a new “status quo” that leaves no room for small entities. The world now seeks to protect these smaller groups—Christians, Druze, Alawites—by establishing international sanctuaries to prevent their extinction.

Washington will not ease its pressure unless the Shia political lexicon changes—specifically by removing the phrase “elimination of Israel” and agreeing to integrate into the Western system. After the Arab and Islamic abandonment of the Shia, who sacrificed much to defend Arab interests, America is prepared to offer them influence and expansion in exchange for a radical shift in concepts related to jihad and religious rulings, to counter the West’s fear of militant Islam spreading from Pakistan to Berlin.

On the Lebanese level, we face the danger of repeating the scenarios of 1976 and 1982. In 1976, the Syrians entered under the pretext of the “Arab Deterrent Force.” In 1982, the Israelis invaded under the pretext of “expelling the Palestinians,” only for Syria to complete the task later.

Today, the ambitions of “Islamic Syria” in Lebanon do not differ from those of “Baathist Syria.” The danger does not stem from an internal war—thanks to the awareness of the Lebanese people—but from a Fifth Column exploiting the weight of the Syrian presence (refugees and workers), who now outnumber the Lebanese. They may manufacture a security crisis to justify a Syrian intervention by “popular demand,” which Israel might meet with a new invasion to “correct past failures,” paving the way for annexation and the application of Kissinger’s theory that viewed Lebanon as a “historical error” and a geographical surplus.

Here lies the secret of Kissinger’s phrase:
“Lebanon was a historical error born before its time.”

In the early 20th century, the international plan was to divide the Levant into five sectarian states after the Palestinian Nakba. The displaced Palestinians were to be sent to the “Shia state” in the South to be naturalized, effectively liquidating their cause. But the Lebanese political intellect thwarted this plan with genius. By demanding an independent state with a Christian President, Lebanon sent a message to the world:
“If Muslims accept a Christian president—once a Dhimmi under Ottoman rule—then the existence of a Jewish state becomes acceptable by comparison.”

Lebanon was born “before its time” through the brilliance of its founders, who prevented the region from turning into cantons serving the Zionist project.

Today, politics has shrunk from global dimensions to the narrow “politics of cantons.” These entities possess neither the requirements for life nor the decision of death, except by international decree—as we see in the tragedy of Gaza.

In conclusion, in an era of major global conflicts, weapons alone do not protect nations. What we need are “political nuclear minds.” Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Syria—with all their armies, vast lands, and natural wealth—have faced existential tremors. What protects Lebanon is that brilliant political intellect which is no longer a luxury, but an existential necessity and a national consultation that must be extended to the entire country.

Geography conspires against Lebanon; it can only be protected by its history of coexistence, its cultural uniqueness, and its global pioneering role, just as it was in the past.

Share

Comments

Add your comment