Lebanon Between Fragile Stability and Potential Escalation

Amid the rapidly evolving regional developments in the Middle East, the complexities of the Lebanese situation have emerged as a reflection of the broader conflict dynamics shaping the region. The country remains deeply affected by the broader regional conflict, as political uncertainty, security pressures, and shifting geopolitical dynamics reshape its strategic landscape. While diplomatic efforts have intensified in pursuit of stability, repeated violations of the ceasefire, ongoing military exchanges across the border, and mounting domestic challenges have heightened concerns about Lebanon’s future trajectory. At the same time, the Lebanese file appears to be undergoing a relative repositioning within wider regional negotiations, raising questions about the country’s role in an increasingly fluid regional order.

Against this backdrop, the Middle East Council on Global Affairs organized a panel discussion to examine the current situation in Lebanon and assess the prospects for moving from crisis management toward recovery and strategic reassessment. The discussion will address key questions, including: Are current diplomatic efforts sufficient to sustain de-escalation, or does the risk of renewed conflict remain high? How should continued ceasefire violations and regional rivalries shape assessments of Lebanon’s stability? What impact is the ongoing security situation having on Lebanon’s domestic political and social landscape? Can Lebanon leverage this period of uncertainty to redefine its priorities and foreign policy orientation? And what would a sustainable path toward recovery and long-term stability require in the current regional environment?

Diana Moukalled

• The negotiations currently underway are being conducted from a position of weakness, not strength — and acknowledging this reality requires confronting its root causes: Hezbollah’s policies, the wars of support it waged, and its sustained decision to turn southern Lebanon into a military front in service of regional agendas. These choices have led to the human and political catastrophe Lebanon is living through today.
• The enormous cost of this war cannot be overlooked. It is wrong to view the destruction of Lebanese villages in the south, and the impossibility of residents returning for decades to come, as an acceptable price to pay in confronting the Israeli project.
• Israel is a state with expansionist ambitions, and resisting it is not Lebanon’s burden alone to bear.
• Palestine remains the central cause but Lebanon has paid an extraordinary price in its name. Supporting Palestine is not limited to military action, especially since experience has shown that the war of support failed to deliver any real benefit to Gaza. This demands a rethinking of national priorities and developing new approaches that balance Lebanon’s own interests with the commitment to the Palestinian cause.
• Lebanon must work to broaden its network of international friendships and partnerships, to avoid being left at the mercy of the United States, and specifically the Trump administration, which is exerting pressure in ways that serve Israeli interests at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty.
• Both Washington and Tel Avis seek to sideline and neutralize France’s role in the current negotiations.

Bashar Lakkis

• Since October 7th, Netanyahu has embraced a zero-sum approach built on the premise that there is no room for two parties to coexist in this region, that the conflict is, by necessity, an existential one. Hence, the Israeli government is moving with its full weight toward neutralizing every security and strategic threat it faces across the region as a whole.
• The current Iranian-American negotiations are not simply about the bilateral relationship between the two countries. At their core, they are negotiations to redraw the spheres of influence of the region’s key players — the Gulf bloc, Turkey, and Iran. We are entering a new phase in which the geopolitical reach of each regional power is being redefined.
• Hezbollah will not, at the conclusion of this round of confrontation, accept a return to the pre-2024 balance of power. Seen from theHezbollah decision-makers’ perspective, they view tying their fate to the broader regional struggle,and to the comprehensive arrangements currently being negotiated across the Middle East,as a path that may secure them a minimum of political and security gains in any future agreement.
• Since 2004, Lebanon has been living in a state of structural void,a country without a binding social contract. From the moment the Syrian army withdrew in 2005, the real mechanisms of the Taif Agreement ceased to function, and the country has been without a solid consensual framework. The situation requires the drafting of a new social contract that reorganizes the state.

Hala Al-Sahili

• From a European policy perspective, Lebanon suffers from a deep structural fragility and not a passing or circumstantial crisis. Its formal institutions are in a state of near-total functional collapse, the southern border faces persistent violations that threaten to unravel the ceasefire at any moment, and the political vacuum has entrenched an absence of national decision-making capable of managing crises.
• Europe’s approach leans toward “preventive stability”, supporting the Lebanese army, strengthening post-UNIFIL security arrangements, providing political cover for the negotiating track in Washington, and reducing internal regional polarization. The goal here is not merely to contain escalation, but to arrive at a formula that achieves lasting calm.
• Europe views Lebanon as a vital fault line directly tied to its own strategic security in the eastern Mediterranean. With UNIFIL’s mandate nearing its end, a firm European conviction has taken shape: the time has come to move beyond simply managing stability toward actively engineering it, which requires building a comprehensive security architecture that spares the country a dangerous vacuum and ensures effective monitoring of the southern border.
• The international community believes the ceasefire in southern Lebanon rests on extremely fragile ground, and that sustaining it requires tools that go beyond conventional diplomatic pressure. The situation on the ground is volatile, with complex regional calculations intertwined with the weakness of the Lebanese state, a combination where even a minor incident could ignite and spiral into full-scale confrontation.