Lebanon

Southern Lebanon is undergoing a shift from a traditional peacekeeping framework to a more complex security system, where the Lebanese state, international actors, and new verification mechanisms can share responsibility for achieving and maintaining security. The June 2026 Trilateral Framework Agreement and the August 2026 Rome talks may provide the political start point for this shift, but they don’t determine its outcome. The crucial question is whether the emerging system can establish a sustainable security, or whether the region will remain involved in an externally managed deterrence system.   The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)/UN Security Council Resolution 1701 framework provides the institutional basis for the current transition, but its peacekeeping model was not designed to independently enforce a comprehensive disarmament process or to compel the state to dismantle deeply entrenched non-state actors. Accordingly, its limitations were structural as it couldn’t guarantee exclusive state control over weapons, prevent the rebuilding of non-state actors armed capabilities, or resolve compliance disputes. Consequently, the challenge for the new security architecture is not simply to replace UNIFIL, but to establish mechanisms capable of performing functions that the previous framework could not fully provide.   The signing of the U.S.-supported Trilateral Framework Agreement between Israel and Lebanon on 26 June 2026 appeared, at first sight, to open a path toward a comprehensive peace agreement through ending Israeli military operations in Lebanon and restoring Lebanese sovereignty. However, continued ceasefire violations, the delay in the Israeli withdrawal, and Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm have created obstacles to comprehensive peace in Lebanon. With talks in Rome between Lebanon and the United States in August, expectations have emerged that a genuine negotiation process may begin, potentially helping shape the security order in southern Lebanon.   The question of a new security order is becoming increasingly important in light of recent developments, such as discussions over the establishment of U.S.-backed “pilot zones,” the expansion of the Lebanese Army’s deployment, the future of the UNIFIL, as well as discussion of new international mechanisms to monitor and enforce security arrangements. Accordingly, the future of southern Lebanon should not be viewed as a binary choice between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state. Rather, the indicators point to the emergence of three competing security models that could replace the existing security model. The question becomes whether southern Lebanon is moving toward a state-led security system, an internationally supported security framework, or a retreat from the security developments on the ground, with prolonged managed deterrence continuing to prevail.

The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a disputed maritime passage, nor simply a recurring flashpoint between Iran and the United States. It has instead evolved into a central arena for testing the meaning of sovereignty in the region. While Washington continues to regard the strait as an international waterway governed by the principle of freedom of navigation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps treats it as a sovereign zone under its direct administration, subject to military rules imposed through effective ground control. Accordingly, the core of the crisis no longer centres on the question, "Is the strait open or closed?" Rather, the more consequential question has become: what is the future of the strait in light of the ongoing negotiations?   Recent developments, particularly following the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it described as violations of the terms of the memorandum of understanding, especially about the Lebanese file just days after the memorandum was signed, reveal that the issue has not been resolved but has instead grown more complex. The memorandum treated the strait as a technical issue that could be managed through arrangements governing passage and transit to prevent friction. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by contrast, approached it as a symbol of sovereignty, power, and the right to set the rules. This divergence rendered the understanding itself incapable of resolving the underlying dispute, because the disagreement between the two sides lies not in procedural details, but in who holds the authority to determine those procedures in the first place.   Although the United States and Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz immediately after signing the preliminary agreement, this does not necessarily mean that maritime traffic will return to pre-war levels. Implementing this provision presents complex challenges related to the mechanism for reactivating the shipping corridor, the arrangements required to resume vessel traffic, and the restrictions that may persist during the sixty days allocated to negotiate the final agreement. These challenges are further compounded by the dispute over which party will assume responsibility for regulating and managing maritime traffic through the strait. Taken together, these obstacles suggest that reopening the strait may prove one of the most complex aspects of the agreement, particularly given the ongoing divergence between the American and Iranian visions for the future control of this strategic waterway.   The crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, therefore, cannot be understood merely as a dispute over borders or the passage of ships; it is fundamentally a crisis of authority: the authority to set the rules, to impose exceptions, and to exercise the final say in determining whether this waterway remains open, closed, or conditionally accessible. For this reason, the question of the strait should no longer be viewed as a secondary file within the broader Iran–United States conflict. Rather, it should be recognised as one of the most consequential issues shaping and redefining the very concept of sovereignty, both within Iran itself and in the evolving structure of relations between regional and international powers.

The Middle East has undergone profound shifts in its security and geopolitical landscape following the major events that began on 7 October 2023 and continued to unfold through 2026. At the heart of these shifts lies a fundamental transformation in Israeli military doctrine. For many years, Israel relied on rapid pre-emptive strikes and advanced technologies to sustain remote defence without requiring permanent control over new territory. However, the unprecedented breaches of its borders have fundamentally altered this strategy. Israel has now moved towards direct physical control over parts of Arab territory and has begun constructing a broad, contiguous belt of buffer zones extending from the Gaza Strip in the south and southern Lebanon in the north to the Syrian Golan Heights.   Historically, buffer zones were understood as demilitarised and relatively calm spaces designed to separate conflicting parties and prevent direct friction. Israel, however, has fundamentally redefined this concept, transforming such zones into instruments of absolute security control. Through this approach, it seeks to create fortified military spaces that provide strategic depth, eliminate cross-border threats and tunnels, and push the battlefield entirely away from its cities and population centres.   Despite the clarity of these objectives, this approach places Israeli military planners in a genuine dilemma. The permanent deployment of large infantry and armoured forces within hostile and volatile areas threatens to turn these belts—intended to serve as secure zones—into arenas of sustained and costly military attrition. Against this backdrop, this analysis raises a central and fundamental question: do these border strips constitute a genuine security buffer capable of ensuring Israel’s long-term survival and security, or have they already become a trap that steadily drains its capabilities day after day?

As many regional and global powers rush to reshape the Middle East to serve their strategic interests, the past two years have been marked by a cascade of transformative and often tumultuous events. These include the Israeli army’s large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip following October 7, efforts to diminish Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, intensifying Israeli military operations against Iran, and most recently, a wave of Western countries intending to formally recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel’s announcement of plans for the annexation of the West Bank and a comprehensive occupation of the Gaza Strip.   Together, these rapid developments not only underscore deepening conflict and instability but also actively fuel the emerging discourse about the "New Middle East", a strategic framework envisioned by key actors outside of the region that seeks to redefine the geopolitical, security, economic, and diplomatic order of the region. The intertwining of hard power manoeuvres, shifting alliances, and economic realignments signals a significant recalibration rather than a mere continuation of the status quo.   In 2025, the potential rise in Western recognition of Palestinian statehood reflects growing international dissatisfaction with existing diplomatic frameworks and a push to rethink longstanding regional issues, directly challenging Israel’s traditional security and diplomatic calculus. Concurrently, Israel’s authorised military plan to take full control of Gaza exemplifies a decisive shift toward hardening its territorial and security posture, marking an unprecedented phase in Israeli-Palestinian relations and regional politics.   The confluence of these developments amplifies the narratives and policies underpinning the New Middle East: a vision premised on assertive state-centric realignments, expanded normalisation efforts, a recalibrated balance of power, and an economy-driven model of regional transactions. This evolving order encompasses ambitions to diminish Iranian influence, redefine Palestinian sovereignty on new terms, and facilitate deeper economic and security integration among select regional actors.   Ultimately, these events serve both as catalysts and manifestations of the "New Middle East" discourse. They reflect a region in flux where entrenched conflicts and new diplomatic initiatives are simultaneously eroding old paradigms and opening pathways for a fundamentally restructured Middle Eastern landscape.   This paper critically explores how the recent rapid developments in the Middle East contribute to shaping competing visions of the region’s future. It assesses whether the ongoing transformations reflect a deeper realignment driven by strategic state interests, expanding economic interdependence, and a recalibrated regional order that transcends historical cycles of conflict. Specifically, the analysis considers if these changes primarily illustrate Samuel Huntington’s "Clash of Civilisations" thesis—attributing post-Cold War regional conflicts to cultural and religious identity divisions—or if they instead represent a deliberate and calculated strategic effort to "reshape the Middle East" through redefined state priorities, shifting power dynamics, and newly forged regional and international alliances.

Lebanon today faces a critical crossroads that directly threatens its national sovereignty, and this challenge is reflected in the issue of confiscating Hezbollah’s weapons. On Aug. 5, 2025, the Lebanese government issued an important decision entrusting the armed forces with the task of developing a plan to establish the state's monopoly on weapons, restricting the possession of arms exclusively to state institutions, in implementation of the ceasefire agreement with Israel, with the plan to be executed before the end of the current year. This decision represents a strategic turning point that places Hezbollah before complex choices: voluntary disarmament, moving towards political transformation, or direct military confrontation with the Lebanese army.   Hezbollah, for its part, rejects this decision, describing it as a major sin, threatening to ignore it and considering disarmament a direct threat to Lebanon’s resistance against external aggression. The decision faces significant challenges due to the strong popular and political support Hezbollah enjoys, in addition to political maneuvers aimed at obstructing any measures targeting its weapons. Given the fragility of Lebanon’s political and sectarian system, there are significant risks of a confrontation breaking out that could escalate internal tensions and undermine security stability, making any direct military clash between the army and Hezbollah fraught with danger, with the likelihood of intensifying sectarian divisions and expanding the circle of violence. Will the Lebanese army be able to confront Hezbollah?

Iran’s militias in Iraq and Lebanon are currently grappling with multi-dimensional crises, including the erosion of their political influence, mounting military pressures, and the need to recalibrate their strategies amid shifting regional alliances in a volatile regional and international environment. These challenges are undermining their ability to sustain the role they once played within Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” This situation coincides with the visit of the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, at a particularly critical and sensitive moment. The visit represents either an opportunity to forge new alliances or an attempt to rescue embattled allies in Iraq and Lebanon.

The United States started putting sanctions on Syria as early as 1979, mostly because Syria was labelled as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST). The first designation was based on Syria's military occupation of Lebanon and its support for groups like Hezbollah that the government paid for. This early policy took a harsh and threatening stance against a government that was seen as hostile and supportive of non-state actors that were seen as a threat to U.S. interests.   After the Syrian conflict started in 2011, the U.S. greatly increased its sanctions against the Assad government. The goal of these more extensive measures was to stop the Syrian government from using violence against its people and to encourage political changes that could get to the bottom of the conflict. This was a big change from only focussing on counter-terrorism to a wider agenda that included human rights and changing the behaviour of the regime, with some elements of coercive diplomacy.   The end of Bashar al-Assad's rule in early December 2024 marks a major change in Syria's politics. This event changed the main goal of the long-standing U.S. sanctions, which were mostly aimed at the now-deposed government.   In May 2025, during a trip to Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump made a big announcement: he would lift sanctions on Syria. He said this would "give them a chance at greatness." Many people see this announcement as a "historic development" that has "major potential to improve living conditions" and "support the Syrian political transition." The goal is to make the area more stable and improve Syria's economic prospects after years of being held back by harsh international sanctions. This paper looks at the United States' sanctions against Syria in depth, putting the recent change in policy in the context of its history and the law.

In March 2025, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq agreed to create a joint committee to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). While this committee reflects the desire of regional countries to take lead in deterring regional security threats, it also motivates the United States to withdraw its forces from Syria, giving more space to the new formed committee to fight ISIS. Moreover, the newly formed committee could serve as an alternative to the U.S.-led international coalition that was established in September 2014 to counter ISIS and curb its spread in Syria and Iraq.   While the coalition was instrumental in weakening the group, mainly through airstrikes and by supporting Kurdish armed factions on the ground, it now appears that regional actors are stepping in to lead the next phase of counterterrorism efforts.

Hezbollah stands at a pivotal crossroads, navigating the turbulent aftermath of a devastating conflict with Israel and grappling with profound shifts in its domestic politics and the regional strategic map. The cessation of hostilities, marked by a U.S.-brokered ceasefire effective Nov. 27, 2024, brought an end to intense fighting that inflicted immense human suffering and infrastructural damage across the country. This fragile peace coincided with, and was significantly influenced by two seismic events: the sudden collapse of the al-Assad regime in Syria, severing Hezbollah’s critical land bridge to Iran, and the end of a paralyzing two-year presidential vacuum in Lebanon with the election of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) Commander General Joseph Aoun, who has promised to dismantle Hezbollah’s military structure and restrict access to weapons, these promises were likely possible to make because of Hezbollah's significantly weakened state.   The 2024 conflict dealt an unprecedented blow to Hezbollah, resulting in the decapitation of its leadership, including longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah and his designated successor; the death of thousands of its fighters; the depletion of its arsenal; and the destruction of vital military infrastructure. This military degradation precipitated a tangible decline in its political influence. Regionally isolated by the fall of its Syrian ally and unable to dictate terms domestically, facing the state signaling a potential shift in Lebanon's internal power dynamics.   Faced with military exhaustion, regional isolation, domestic political setbacks, and a core narrative of "resistance" severely challenged by the reality of defeat, Hezbollah confronts an existential crisis. The organization that emerged from the 2024 conflict is fundamentally different from the one that entered it. This analysis, probes the future trajectory of Hezbollah in this drastically altered landscape to understand how Hezbollah might adapt, survive, or transform in the face of these compounding pressures, and the constraints facing the Lebanese state and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in asserting sovereignty, the divergent perspectives shaping the political discourse, and the plausible future pathways for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The strategically significant Rajaee Port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, was rocked by a massive explosion during the third round of Iranian-US talks in Oman on Saturday, April 26 2025, marking a pivotal moment that warrants in-depth analysis. Located near the Strait of Hormuz, the port serves as a critical nexus for Iran's container traffic and plays a crucial role in the country’s foreign trade, especially amid the sanctions imposed on it. Initial reports point to two primary hypotheses regarding the cause of the incident: the first suggests an accidental explosion resulting from mishandling hundreds of tons of a vital chemical substance, likely used to fuel Iran’s ballistic missile programme, reminiscent of the 2020 Beirut explosion; the second, however, raises the possibility of deliberate sabotage, potentially orchestrated by Israel with the intent to disrupt the Iranian-American diplomatic track. The timing of the explosion, coinciding with intense diplomatic efforts, adds further weight to its potential ramifications.   Regardless of the final cause, an explosion of such magnitude exposes significant vulnerabilities in Iran's security and management systems, reverberating across the entire region. It casts a shadow over diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing nuclear tensions and other unresolved issues. This commentary explores the potential post-incident scenarios, the implications of each hypothesis

The appointment of Major General Eyal Zamir to the helm of the Israeli Army, will take office on March 6, transcends a routine leadership transition. It portends a potential strategic recalibration in Israeli military thinking, responding to evolving threats and perceived doctrinal vulnerabilities. Lauded across Israel's political spectrum as the right leader for these turbulent times, Zamir inherits a complex and precarious landscape. He is tasked with revitalizing an army perceived as "faltering," navigating a potentially obstructive political environment, and addressing a volatile region simmering with unresolved conflicts. Adding to the weight on his shoulders is the historical baggage he carries in the eyes of Palestinians, for whom his name evokes memories of harsh measures during past uprisings and operations. This analysis delves into the implications of Zamir's appointment, the delicate dance between political leadership and military autonomy in Israel, the anticipated doctrinal shifts under his command, and the spectre of looming confrontations on multiple fronts.

In a significant escalatory move, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, has notified the UN Secretary-General in writing that UNRWA must cease its operations and vacate its premises by January 30, 2025. This ultimatum follows Israel’s enactment of a law last October banning the agency’s activities within its territory, including occupied East Jerusalem. The decision is rooted in Israel’s allegations that UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas, with claims that some of its employees were involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.   This paper examines the evolving and contentious relationship between Israel and UNRWA. It also explores potential U.S. intentions to dismantle the agency, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s return to power and his recent remarks regarding the displacement of Gaza’s population and the repercussions of this ban.