The intricate tapestry of Middle Eastern geopolitics is once again woven with threads of high-stakes diplomacy and entrenched conflict, as Iran has put forth a provocative condition for de-escalation with the United States: Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon. This declaration, emerging from the labyrinthine corridors of Tehran, casts a stark light on the interconnectedness of regional crises, suggesting that a resolution to the broader ‘war’ — understood as the multifaceted confrontation between Iran and the US and its allies — hinges on a seemingly isolated but profoundly symbolic issue: the fate of disputed territories and the influence of a powerful non-state actor in Lebanon.
Such a demand by Iran is not merely a negotiating tactic; it reflects a deep-seated strategic calculus that positions Lebanon, and by extension the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, at the very heart of the larger regional power struggle. It forces a reconsideration of the historical grievances, the geopolitical chess moves, and the seemingly intractable positions that define the Middle East’s volatile landscape. This article delves into the complexities of Iran’s proposition, examining its historical roots, its implications for regional actors, and the formidable obstacles that stand in the way of any comprehensive resolution.
Table of Contents
- Iran’s Stance: A Conditional Overture
- Historical Echoes: The Israel-Lebanon Conflict
- Iran’s Strategic Calculus: Beyond Lebanon
- The US Perspective: Navigating a Minefield
- Hezbollah’s Centrality in the Equation
- Obstacles to a Grand Bargain
- Potential Pathways to De-escalation (If Any)
- Implications for Regional Stability
- Conclusion: A Winding Road to Peace
Iran’s Stance: A Conditional Overture
The statement from Tehran, relayed through official channels, signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing geopolitical saga of the Middle East. By explicitly linking a comprehensive deal with the United States to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Iran has laid down a clear, albeit complex, precondition. This is not a casual remark but a carefully calibrated diplomatic maneuver, designed to project strength, underscore influence, and reframe the narrative of regional conflict resolution.
The Core Demand: Israel’s Withdrawal from Lebanon
At the heart of Iran’s declaration lies a demand for Israel to relinquish all its remaining territorial claims and military presence in Lebanon. While Israel largely withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation, disputes persist over small pockets of land, most notably the Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar. For Iran, and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, these areas represent continued Israeli occupation and a casus belli for resistance. The demand goes beyond merely territorial specifics; it encapsulates a broader aspiration to diminish Israeli influence on its northern border and bolster the narrative of Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.
From Tehran’s vantage point, an Israeli withdrawal would be a significant strategic victory, not only affirming the legitimacy of resistance movements but also potentially weakening Israel’s security posture and its perceived regional dominance. It also serves to elevate Hezbollah’s status, portraying it as an effective guardian of Lebanese sovereignty against external aggression. For Iran, the issue of Lebanon is intrinsically tied to its “Axis of Resistance” strategy, a network of allies and proxies designed to challenge American and Israeli interests across the Middle East.
Interpreting “The Deal to End the War with the US”
The phrase “the deal to end the war with the US” is laden with implications. It does not necessarily refer to a direct military confrontation between Washington and Tehran, but rather to the broader, protracted geopolitical struggle that has defined their relationship for decades. This includes the proxy wars fought on various fronts—from Syria and Iraq to Yemen and Lebanon—the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the US, and the persistent tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and its regional ballistic missile capabilities. Iran views these multifarious pressures as components of an ongoing “economic war” and a continuous effort by the US to destabilize its regime and contain its regional aspirations.
Therefore, any “deal” would likely involve a comprehensive package of agreements addressing these interconnected issues. For the US, this would entail reassessing its long-standing policy of containing Iran, potentially rolling back sanctions, and acknowledging Iran’s regional role. For Iran, it would mean a cessation of what it perceives as hostile US actions and a recognition of its security concerns. By linking this grand bargain to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Iran is signaling that the Lebanese front is not an isolated skirmish but a critical barometer of any serious intention for wider de-escalation.
Historical Echoes: The Israel-Lebanon Conflict
Understanding the current Iranian demand requires a deep dive into the historical complexities of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. It is a narrative steeped in occupation, resistance, and the enduring scars of war that have profoundly shaped the political landscape of both nations and the wider region.
A Legacy of Occupation and Resistance: From 1982 to 2000
The roots of modern Israeli-Lebanese tension can be traced back to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, dubbed “Operation Peace for Galilee.” The primary objective was to eradicate the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) presence in southern Lebanon, which Israel viewed as a direct security threat. The invasion led to a prolonged Israeli occupation of a “security zone” in southern Lebanon, which lasted for 18 years. This occupation, while intended to protect Israel’s northern communities, inadvertently sowed the seeds for new forms of resistance. The Lebanese population, particularly the Shiite community in the south, suffered under the occupation, leading to the rise of various local militias and resistance groups.
The period was marked by intense guerrilla warfare against Israeli forces and their local allies, primarily the South Lebanon Army (SLA). The protracted conflict drained Israeli resources, both human and financial, and fueled internal debate within Israel about the wisdom and cost of the occupation. Ultimately, facing mounting casualties and an increasingly effective resistance, Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces in May 2000. This withdrawal was hailed as a major victory by the resistance, especially by Hezbollah, which claimed credit for driving out the occupying force.
Hezbollah’s Rise and Role: A State within a State
It was within this context of occupation and resistance that Hezbollah (Party of God) emerged as a formidable force. Formed in the early 1980s with substantial support and ideological guidance from Iran, Hezbollah initially aimed to resist the Israeli occupation and promote an Islamic revolutionary agenda. Over the decades, it evolved from a purely military organization into a powerful political party, a vast social service provider, and a sophisticated paramilitary force. Its military wing, armed and trained by Iran, became the primary force confronting Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s successful campaign against the Israeli occupation cemented its image among many Lebanese, particularly Shiites, as a legitimate resistance movement and a defender of national sovereignty. This narrative granted it immense popular legitimacy, allowing it to integrate into Lebanon’s complex sectarian political system while maintaining its independent military infrastructure. Today, Hezbollah wields significant political power, holds seats in parliament and cabinet, and maintains an arsenal that rivals that of the Lebanese national army, effectively operating as a “state within a state.”
The 2006 War and its Aftermath
The simmering tensions between Israel and Hezbollah erupted into a full-scale war in July 2006, triggered by a Hezbollah cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers. The 34-day conflict was devastating for Lebanon, particularly its infrastructure and civilian population, and involved extensive Israeli air campaigns and ground incursions. Hezbollah, in turn, launched thousands of rockets into northern Israel. The war ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire, UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for a full cessation of hostilities, Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon, and the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, including Hezbollah.
While the war did not decisively defeat Hezbollah, it demonstrated its resilience and its capability to inflict damage on Israel. The aftermath saw a significant international presence in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) and a period of uneasy calm, punctuated by occasional skirmishes and heightened rhetoric. The 2006 war further reinforced Hezbollah’s position as a key regional player and Iran’s most potent proxy on Israel’s border.
The Contested Border: Shebaa Farms and Beyond
Despite Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, the border remains a flashpoint due to unresolved territorial disputes. The most prominent is the Shebaa Farms, a small, agriculturally insignificant strip of land at the intersection of Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. Israel considers the Shebaa Farms part of the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981. Lebanon, backed by Syria, claims the area as Lebanese territory. The UN recognizes the 2000 Israeli withdrawal as complete based on its own demarcation of the Blue Line, which does not include Shebaa Farms as Lebanese territory. However, for Hezbollah and Iran, the Shebaa Farms remain occupied Lebanese land, providing a continued justification for Hezbollah’s armed existence and “resistance” activities.
Similarly, the village of Ghajar, bisected by the Blue Line, represents another complex border issue. These seemingly minor territorial disputes serve as powerful symbols in the broader narrative of resistance against occupation, providing a perpetual pretext for the ongoing state of tension and hostility, which Iran now seeks to leverage for a broader diplomatic breakthrough.
Iran’s Strategic Calculus: Beyond Lebanon
Iran’s demand regarding Lebanon is not an isolated request but an integral part of its overarching foreign policy and regional strategic objectives. Tehran views its influence in Lebanon, primarily through Hezbollah, as a critical component of its deterrent capabilities against adversaries and a cornerstone of its “Axis of Resistance.”
Supporting Proxies: Hezbollah as a Cornerstone of Regional Influence
For Iran, Hezbollah is more than just an ideological ally; it is a vital strategic asset. The group’s advanced military capabilities, its deep entrenchment in Lebanese society, and its proximity to Israel provide Iran with significant leverage and strategic depth. Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets, precision-guided munitions, and drone capabilities poses a direct threat to Israel, acting as a powerful deterrent against any potential Israeli or American military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities or other strategic assets. This “deterrence by denial” strategy is central to Iran’s regional security doctrine.
Through Hezbollah, Iran projects power and influence without direct military involvement, complicating the calculus for both Israel and the United States. It allows Iran to indirectly challenge the regional dominance of Saudi Arabia and its allies, while also acting as a counterweight to American presence and influence in the Middle East. The demand for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, therefore, is an attempt to formalize and legitimize this critical aspect of Iran’s regional power projection.
The Broader US-Iran Dynamic: Sanctions, Nuclear Deal, and Regional Hegemony
The Iranian statement must be understood within the broader context of the tumultuous US-Iran relationship. Decades of antagonism, marked by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq War, and the subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign by the US, have created an environment of profound mistrust. The unilateral US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, in 2018, and the subsequent re-imposition of crippling sanctions, deeply exacerbated tensions. Iran views these sanctions as an act of economic warfare aimed at regime change.
For Tehran, any “deal to end the war” must address these fundamental grievances. It would likely require a lifting of sanctions, a return to the nuclear deal on terms favorable to Iran, and perhaps a US commitment to refrain from interfering in Iran’s internal affairs or its regional relationships. The demand regarding Lebanon is a powerful bargaining chip, demonstrating Iran’s ability to influence events on a critical front and linking seemingly disparate issues into a single, comprehensive negotiation framework. It’s a testament to Iran’s perception that its regional proxy activities are a legitimate response to what it sees as US-Israeli aggression and containment policies.
Weaving a Web of Influence: Syria, Iraq, Yemen
Hezbollah is not the only thread in Iran’s regional web of influence. Tehran has cultivated a network of proxy forces and allied militias across the Middle East, collectively known as the “Axis of Resistance.” In Syria, Iranian support for the Assad regime, including the deployment of IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) advisors and the mobilization of Shiite militias (many trained by Hezbollah), was instrumental in turning the tide of the civil war. This has secured a land corridor connecting Iran to Lebanon, enhancing Tehran’s logistical capabilities for supporting Hezbollah.
In Iraq, Iran maintains significant influence through various Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) that emerged in the fight against ISIS. These groups often operate outside direct government control and have been implicated in attacks against US forces and interests. In Yemen, the Houthi movement, which receives support from Iran, continues to challenge the Saudi-backed government, further complicating regional dynamics and engaging Saudi Arabia in a costly, protracted conflict. By linking the Lebanon issue to a broader deal with the US, Iran is effectively asserting that all these interconnected conflicts are part of a larger contest for regional supremacy, and that the US must acknowledge Iran’s influence across these theaters if it truly seeks de-escalation.
The US Perspective: Navigating a Minefield
Iran’s demand places the United States in a precarious position, caught between its strategic alliances, its stated policy objectives, and the complex realities of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Washington’s response to such a condition will have far-reaching implications for regional stability and its own standing as a global power.
Washington’s Dilemma: Balancing Interests and Alliances
The US has a multi-faceted set of interests in the Middle East: ensuring the security of its allies, particularly Israel and the Gulf monarchies; safeguarding global energy supplies; combating terrorism; and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s demand for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon directly challenges the core interest of Israel’s security, which is a bipartisan commitment in Washington. Accepting such a precondition would be seen by many as undermining Israel’s sovereignty and legitimizing Hezbollah, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US.
Furthermore, the US maintains robust security partnerships with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, all of whom view Iran as a primary threat to regional stability. Conceding to an Iranian demand that enhances Hezbollah’s stature could strain these alliances and be perceived as a betrayal of long-standing partners. The dilemma for Washington is how to pursue de-escalation with Iran without alienating its traditional allies or compromising its strategic objectives.
De-escalation vs. Containment: A Shifting Strategy
US policy towards Iran has historically oscillated between containment and, at times, attempts at diplomatic engagement. The Trump administration pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” aimed at isolating Iran and forcing it to renegotiate the nuclear deal on more stringent terms. The Biden administration, while expressing a desire to revive the JCPOA, has also maintained significant sanctions and expressed concerns about Iran’s regional activities. Iran’s latest demand forces Washington to confront the inherent tension between its desire to de-escalate regional conflicts and its commitment to containing Iran’s influence.
To accept Iran’s condition would require a fundamental shift in US policy, potentially acknowledging Iran’s regional sphere of influence and effectively validating Hezbollah’s “resistance” narrative. This is a difficult pill to swallow for a nation that has long sought to counter Iran’s destabilizing actions. The internal debate within US foreign policy circles would be fierce, weighing the potential benefits of a grand bargain (e.g., stability, a renewed nuclear deal) against the perceived costs of emboldening Iran and compromising allied security.
The Role of Diplomacy: Direct vs. Indirect Channels
Direct diplomatic channels between the US and Iran are virtually non-existent, making any comprehensive deal incredibly challenging to broker. Instead, communication often occurs through intermediaries, such as Oman, Qatar, or European powers. Iran’s public statement, therefore, might also be a way to publicly articulate its core demands, shaping the diplomatic landscape even without direct talks.
The US traditionally prefers direct negotiations on specific issues, like the nuclear program, rather than engaging in grand bargains that link disparate regional conflicts. However, Iran’s approach suggests that it views these issues as inextricably linked. For any progress to occur, Washington would need to decide if it is willing to consider a more holistic approach to US-Iran relations, one that incorporates regional security concerns and the grievances of both sides. This would require immense political will and a re-evaluation of long-held doctrines.
Hezbollah’s Centrality in the Equation
Hezbollah is not merely a pawn in Iran’s geopolitical game; it is a powerful, autonomous, and deeply embedded actor in its own right. Its role in Lebanon and its relationship with Iran are central to understanding the complexities of the current demand.
More Than a Militia: Political, Social, and Military Power
Hezbollah’s influence extends far beyond its military capabilities. It is a major political force in Lebanon, with significant representation in parliament and a say in government formation. Its social wing provides a vast network of services, including schools, hospitals, and welfare programs, particularly to the Shiite community, which has historically been marginalized. This extensive social infrastructure has endeared Hezbollah to a significant portion of the Lebanese population, creating a powerful domestic base of support.
Militarily, Hezbollah is arguably the most potent non-state armed actor in the world. Its highly trained and equipped fighters, honed by years of conflict against Israel and experience in the Syrian civil war, possess a sophisticated arsenal, including a large cache of rockets and missiles capable of reaching deep into Israel. This makes Hezbollah a formidable deterrent and a critical component of Iran’s regional military strategy.
Iran’s Indispensable Ally: Strategic Depth and Deterrence
For Iran, Hezbollah is an indispensable ally, representing the westernmost pillar of its Axis of Resistance. It provides Iran with strategic depth, extending its influence directly to Israel’s border. Hezbollah’s military might serves as a critical deterrent, complicating any potential Israeli or US military action against Iran. In essence, Hezbollah acts as Iran’s “forward defense,” ensuring that any confrontation would not be confined to Iranian territory but would immediately encompass Israel’s northern front.
Iran’s support for Hezbollah is multi-faceted, encompassing financial aid, military training, and ideological guidance. This enduring partnership is a testament to shared strategic interests and ideological affinity. The demand for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, therefore, is also a demand to secure and legitimize this vital alliance, solidifying Hezbollah’s role as a sovereign defender of Lebanese territory and a legitimate actor in the regional power balance.
Lebanon’s Internal Divisions and Hezbollah’s Grip
Hezbollah’s strong position in Lebanon comes at a cost, however. Its independent armed status and its loyalty to Iran are deeply divisive issues within Lebanon. Many Lebanese, particularly from Christian and Sunni communities, view Hezbollah as a sectarian militia that undermines state institutions and drags Lebanon into regional conflicts against its will. The country’s delicate sectarian power-sharing agreement is constantly strained by Hezbollah’s overwhelming influence.
Lebanon is currently grappling with an unprecedented economic crisis, political paralysis, and widespread corruption. Hezbollah’s involvement in these domestic challenges, coupled with its adherence to Iran’s regional agenda, further exacerbates internal tensions. The Iranian demand for Israel’s withdrawal, while framed as a liberation, could also be seen by some Lebanese as further entrenching Hezbollah’s power and Iran’s control over Lebanon’s foreign policy, deepening the country’s internal rifts.
Obstacles to a Grand Bargain
While Iran’s demand outlines a potential pathway to de-escalation, the practicalities of achieving such a grand bargain are fraught with formidable obstacles, reflecting decades of entrenched animosity and divergent interests.
Deep-Seated Mistrust: A History of Antagonism
The history between Iran, Israel, and the United States is characterized by profound and deep-seated mistrust. For Israel, Iran is an existential threat, openly calling for its destruction and actively supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. For Iran, Israel is an occupying power, an extension of US hegemony, and a key adversary. The US, while engaging in diplomacy, largely views Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force. This decades-long antagonism has created a climate where any proposal from one side is immediately viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the others. Breaking through this wall of mistrust would require extraordinary diplomatic efforts and significant confidence-building measures.
Divergent Interests: Regional Powers and Global Players
The Middle East is a complex web of competing interests. Israel’s primary interest is its security and the neutralization of threats from its borders. Iran seeks regional hegemony, the protection of its revolutionary ideals, and the lifting of sanctions. The US aims to protect its allies, maintain regional stability, and counter terrorism. Beyond these, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have their own geopolitical aspirations, often in direct opposition to Iran’s. Any deal involving Lebanon would inevitably ripple across these regional fault lines, requiring buy-in or at least acquiescence from a multitude of actors with often conflicting agendas.
The Challenge of Verification and Enforcement
Even if an agreement were theoretically possible, its verification and enforcement would pose immense challenges. How would an Israeli withdrawal from disputed territories be verified to Iran’s satisfaction? What guarantees would Israel receive regarding the future security of its northern border, especially regarding Hezbollah’s posture? Would Hezbollah agree to disarm and integrate into the Lebanese army as mandated by UN Security Council resolutions, or would it simply shift its rhetoric? Given the history of violations and non-compliance with international agreements in the region, establishing a robust and credible verification mechanism would be an arduous task.
Domestic Politics in Iran, Israel, and the US
The domestic political landscapes in all three key nations present significant impediments. In Iran, hardliners often view concessions as a sign of weakness and are wary of any deal that might undermine the revolutionary principles of the regime or compromise its regional influence. In Israel, any perceived compromise on security, particularly concerning its northern border, would face fierce opposition from a hawkish political establishment and a security-conscious public. In the US, any deal seen as appeasing Iran or undermining Israel’s security would face significant bipartisan backlash in Congress, making it difficult for any administration to garner the necessary political support.
Potential Pathways to De-escalation (If Any)
Despite the immense obstacles, the very articulation of such a demand, however challenging, opens a theoretical door to potential pathways for de-escalation. The question is whether these pathways are viable and whether the political will exists to explore them.
Incremental Steps vs. Comprehensive Solutions
A grand bargain, linking sanctions relief, nuclear commitments, and regional issues, is incredibly difficult to achieve in one fell swoop. A more pragmatic approach might involve incremental steps. This could include confidence-building measures, such as prisoner exchanges, limited sanctions relief for humanitarian purposes, or de-escalation agreements in specific regional hotspots. A phased approach might build the necessary trust over time, paving the way for more comprehensive negotiations. However, Iran’s current statement suggests a preference for a comprehensive solution, which poses a greater challenge.
The Role of Regional Mediators
Given the lack of direct communication, regional mediators could play a crucial role. Countries like Oman, Qatar, or Iraq, which maintain diplomatic ties with both the US and Iran, could facilitate indirect talks or shuttle diplomacy. These mediators could help clarify positions, transmit proposals, and identify areas of potential common ground, slowly chipping away at the mutual distrust. European powers, with their vested interest in regional stability and the nuclear deal, could also serve as important facilitators.
International Pressure and the UN
The United Nations, through its Security Council resolutions (like 1701 for Lebanon) and various agencies, could exert pressure on all parties to adhere to international law and engage in constructive dialogue. International consensus, particularly from major global powers, could help create an environment conducive to negotiation. However, the UN’s effectiveness is often limited by the geopolitical divisions among its permanent members and the sovereignty concerns of the nations involved.
Implications for Regional Stability
The outcome of this Iranian demand—whether it leads to further escalation, a stalemate, or an improbable diplomatic breakthrough—will have profound implications for the volatile Middle East.
The Domino Effect: From Lebanon to the Wider Middle East
The Israel-Lebanon front is a critical flashpoint, and any significant development there could trigger a domino effect across the region. Escalation could lead to another devastating war between Israel and Hezbollah, drawing in other regional actors and potentially involving US forces. Conversely, a breakthrough, however unlikely, could set a precedent for resolving other proxy conflicts, potentially paving the way for broader regional de-escalation in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The interdependencies are immense, and the stakes are exceptionally high for all actors involved.
Economic Repercussions and Humanitarian Concerns
A renewed conflict in Lebanon would be catastrophic for a country already reeling from an unprecedented economic collapse. The humanitarian toll would be immense, leading to mass displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and a deepening of the country’s profound crisis. For Israel, a protracted conflict would entail significant economic costs and security risks. Regionally, any major conflagration would disrupt global energy markets, create further refugee crises, and potentially lead to a global economic downturn. Even the prolonged diplomatic stalemate, with continued sanctions and proxy conflicts, exacts a heavy economic and human cost.
The Future of US Engagement
The manner in which the US responds to Iran’s demand will also shape the future of its engagement in the Middle East. A willingness to consider a comprehensive deal, even if difficult, might signal a shift towards a more pragmatic and less confrontational approach. Conversely, a rejection of the demand without a counter-offer could reinforce the perception among some that the US is not genuinely interested in de-escalation, potentially fueling further regional tensions and solidifying Iran’s narrative of resistance. The decision will define the trajectory of US foreign policy in a critical region for years to come.
Conclusion: A Winding Road to Peace
Iran’s declaration that a deal to end the ‘war’ with the United States is contingent upon Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon is a bold, ambitious, and deeply challenging proposition. It brings into sharp focus the intricate web of historical grievances, geopolitical rivalries, and internal complexities that define the modern Middle East. The demand underscores Tehran’s strategic commitment to its regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah, and its insistence on a holistic approach to resolving its multifaceted confrontation with the US and its allies.
While the prospect of such a grand bargain appears exceedingly remote given the profound mistrust, divergent interests, and domestic political constraints of all parties, the statement itself acts as a critical signal. It highlights that the Lebanese front, often seen as a localized conflict, is in fact a central pillar in Iran’s broader regional strategy and a key bargaining chip in any potential future negotiations with the United States. The road to de-escalation, if it exists at all, will be long, arduous, and fraught with peril, requiring extraordinary diplomatic finesse, a willingness to reconsider entrenched positions, and an unprecedented leap of faith from all sides. Until then, the intricate dance of power and politics will continue to shape the volatile landscape of the Middle East, with Lebanon firmly at the heart of the storm.
