Listen to the article
Media outlets aligned with the Axis of Resistance were quick to voice their opinions on the topic of Greater Lebanon, with some commentators arguing that the Lebanese state was never truly a product of Lebanese thought but rather the result of a historical mistake in separating Lebanon from Syria.
In fact, the resurgence of nationalist rhetoric isn’t a tribute to Antoun Saadeh’s ideology but instead advances the insidious agendas pushed by media outlets close to the Moumana’a Axis and the figures that revolve around it. The debate now focuses on the argument that Lebanon, within its current borders, is no longer viable, as demographic shifts have left Christians—now a minority under the new power dynamics—unable to hold onto the presidency and decision-making authority. This rhetoric paves the way for agendas that undermine national interests. As regional borders shift, the Axis of Resistance seeks to stir popular unrest in anticipation of upcoming negotiations on the region’s future. The underlying message is clear: stakeholders must recognize that the Shiia community represents the majority and deserves political privileges in return for relinquishing their military power.
What does this entail? The message is essentially: if you oppose our military arsenal, we will hand over our weapons. In return, grant us official control so we won’t later be accused of seizing power by force while still armed.
Meanwhile, the Christians are closely watching, hoping that these developments might lead to an international push for greater decentralization, or possibly even a partitioning of the country, granting them territory from Bsharreh to Kfarshima, and if they’re lucky, all the way to Jezzine, with the cooperation of the Druze community in the mountain regions.
However, Hezbollah’s strategic approach over the years has enabled it to steadily encroach upon areas that some Christians aspire to control, from the Shiite in Jbeil and Keserwan to those in the southern suburbs and Aley.
Those advocating for partition will be unable to ignore this reality or address the needs of Christian communities in the outer regions, from Qbaiyat to the Baalbek-Hermel area and the border areas. Additionally, the envisioned Christian state lacks an airport, relying solely on the Jounieh port as its outlet, and it is also short on agricultural land and industrial facilities.
The Christian argument that the endowment (waqf) owns the land will not be sufficient to deter Hezbollah—the dominant faction, not the community—from seeking to control Lebanon geographically. The pro-Iranian group will hold onto Lebanon’s current borders in order to extend its influence over the country.
The solution does not lie in adopting this mindset or following Hezbollah’s agenda. The key is to negotiate without the threat of force, which should be the foundation of any discussion. Those who bring weapons to the table will impose their terms by force and achieve their objectives. Negotiating on equal terms is crucial for a fair outcome; otherwise, the Lebanese framework will collapse before the Taif Agreement can be properly implemented.
We stand at a crossroads that began on October 7, and moving forward will require a shift in the balance of power. In either of the following scenarios, all Lebanese will bear the cost—whether by sacrificing a unified framework for sectarian mini-states or by accepting a dominant state lacking justice. Both outcomes will be challenging. May God protect Lebanon.
