By Lawson Kasshanna

We are living in a region heading toward long-term and radical change. The Middle East today stands at a historic crossroads, and Lebanon, like many countries in the region, waits anxiously to see where the winds of transformation will lead.

My starting point has always been concern for the Christian presence as a minority in this region. The story of Lebanon over the past decades cannot be understood without examining the strategic shifts that affected this community and the country as a whole.

When the State of Israel was established in 1948, the Arab and Islamic world became preoccupied with hostility toward it. For a period of time, this diverted attention away from Lebanon, which at that time still carried a clear Christian face in the region. Yet this distraction did not mean that Lebanon was forgotten. Through the rise of Nasserism, Lebanon was threatened with civil war if it did not allow Palestinian factions to launch military operations against Israel from southern Lebanon. Out of fear of such a conflict, the Cairo Agreement was signed, effectively surrendering Lebanese sovereignty over part of its territory.

Despite the agreement, civil war eventually erupted anyway. Many Muslims in Lebanon—particularly Sunnis—aligned themselves with the Palestinian cause through a broader Arab-Islamic political identity. In doing so, they stood against the Lebanese Army, which was unfairly portrayed at the time as merely the army of the Christians. From that moment onward, Lebanon entered a vortex of instability and conflict from which it has yet to fully emerge.

The dynamics of the conflict shifted again after Israel’s entry into Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah was created, structurally and ideologically linked to Iran. From that point forward, the Shiite community in Lebanon—whether consciously or not—began moving politically and strategically toward Tehran.

In essence, Lebanon became a country where Sunnis often practiced loyalty to Arabism at the expense of Lebanese nationalism, and Shiites later practiced loyalty to Iran at the expense of Lebanon as well. In this equation, the greatest loser was the Lebanese state itself, and naturally the Christians within it.

There was, however, a period in which Christians experienced relative strategic strength when they were allied with Israel. Yet a crucial strategic mistake followed. Bashir Gemayel hesitated and attempted to appease Arab states—particularly Saudi Arabia—rather than fully consolidating his alliance with Israel despite the sacrifices Israel had made in support of him. Later, when Amin Gemayel became president, he did not fully implement the commitments and understandings that had been made previously. These decisions had long-lasting consequences, and the repercussions of those choices still affect Lebanese Christians today. Adding to the complexity of the situation, Israel came to view the Christian political representation in Lebanon almost exclusively through the Gemayel family, which contributed to widening distances and missed opportunities.

Today Lebanon once again stands at a historic moment. The ongoing war affecting Iranian and Lebanese territories will significantly influence Lebanon’s future direction. The country now waits to see where the balance of power will ultimately settle.

Several fundamental questions are now being raised:

Will Lebanon remain within its current territorial framework?
Will the country transform into a different political system, such as federalism?
Or will the broader region—and possibly Lebanon itself—experience territorial fragmentation?

If Lebanon remains united within its current borders, then Christians should actively encourage the conclusion of a peace agreement and normalization with Israel. Such a step would allow cooperation across economic, security, technological, and cultural fields. In a stable state with functioning institutions, Christians would naturally regain a dynamic role in national life. Their influence and freedoms would grow, and many members of the Lebanese Christian diaspora might return, bringing investment, energy, and talent back to the country.

Because the Lebanese state belongs to all its citizens—not only Christians—the most appropriate step in such a scenario would also be to secure a defense agreement with the United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham has suggested. Such an arrangement could provide strategic stability and reinforce national sovereignty.

However, another scenario must also be considered. If Lebanon were to fragment, or if major demographic shifts occurred—such as the displacement of populations through war—then the geopolitical landscape would change dramatically. In such a case, Christians might seek comprehensive agreements with Israel in multiple fields: military, security, economic, educational, and cultural. These arrangements could potentially evolve into a very close alliance or even a confederative relationship, while maintaining constructive relations with neighboring states that respect such choices.

In any scenario, the goal would be to build a strong state alongside Israel that preserves a free, active, and secure Christian presence. Achieving this would require a number of structural reforms within society and governance. These reforms could include reconsidering demographic policies in order to maintain social balance, modernizing education and curricula to reflect contemporary realities, and reviving the Syriac linguistic heritage that historically formed part of Lebanon’s cultural identity.

Lebanon stands today at a moment of anticipation. The choices made in the coming years will shape not only the political structure of the country but also the future of its communities. For Christians in particular, the challenge is to secure a future that guarantees freedom, stability, and an active role in shaping the destiny of the nation.