Research & Commentary Results

Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.

Judicial independence is at the core of any successful democracy, and for decades, this issue has been a matter of public concern in Lebanon. At a time when a credible window of opportunity for change has opened in Lebanon, restoring judicial independence is both a necessity and a prerequisite to enable the judiciary to carry out its duties and end the impunity under which it has historically operated.

The current government in Lebanon is keen to encourage financial recovery and find a new path to economic growth. A thorough understanding of the causes behind the country’s recession and the factors constraining a recovery are necessary to shape policy priorities. These are also important as an input into the discussions of the 2026 budget and to the ongoing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Using the wrong framework for these decisions could yield low economic growth, which would be harmful for a quick and decisive economic recovery. Conversely, improved economic outcomes and broad buy-in, following public consultations, will ease the implementation of politically difficult reforms. Thus, policymakers must take great care to develop a narrative about how to achieve progress in the short and medium terms that is adjusted to local circumstances.

Restoring both domestic and international confidence in the Lebanese government will ultimately depend on taking tangible steps towards economic revival. This article presents key policy options to achieve this result, including rebuilding trust through improved governance and judicial reforms, investing in digital infrastructure, driving sustainable growth via regional integration and innovation, and balancing economic revival with sovereign debt restructuring.

While the banking crisis remains unresolved, there is still ample scope for Lebanon’s central bank to advance reforms and set the stage for a sustainable economic recovery even without a comprehensive reform program supported by the IMF.

Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.

The central challenge facing Lebanon today is whether the country will graduate to functional statehood or continue struggling to survive. Yet with Lebanese officials now insisting that the state “monopolize arms” and become the decisive arbiter on matters of war and peace, a relevant question arises: Where, territorially, does Lebanon begin and end?

To encourage and incentivize long-overdue structural reforms, the European Union and the broader international community should adopt a more proactive, hands-on approach to Lebanon. The current context calls for an approach that balances assistance delivery with active support to the Lebanese government in its quest to reform and rebuild the state.

Following Israel’s September 9 strike on Hamas targets in Qatar, Pakistan has taken swift and significant foreign policy steps in response and adopted an unusually assertive stance. This shift was largely influenced by Pakistan’s military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. The latter is determined to enhance his country’s strategic autonomy and diplomatic leverage in an increasingly complex international environment by positioning Pakistan as a key security actor and an emerging middle power on the global stage.

The Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, signed in Riyadh on September 17, is far more than a bilateral pledge. It represents a profound reordering of alignments in the Gulf and South Asia, reflecting and reinforcing the broader erosion of US preeminence in the Eurasian security architecture. While much of the initial commentary centered on the striking commitment of a wealthy Gulf monarchy to the defense of a nuclear-armed South Asian state, as well as the question of whether Pakistan had in fact extended its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the deeper story is arguably China’s potential advance.

Israel’s September 9 strike on Hamas leaders in Doha rattled Gulf capitals and revived a decades-old debate over whether the region needs a NATO-style defensive alliance. MEI Senior Fellow Jason Campbell joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to unpack why past attempts at collective defense have fallen short, whether this moment is different, and what the crisis means for US security strategy in the Middle East.

President Donald Trump used his speech this week before the United Nations General Assembly to reinforce his unique style of US foreign policy-making and levy criticisms against others, including the UN itself. But Trump did little to create a framework for crafting solutions to address problems and thorny security challenges.

Once hailed as a rare democracy in the Middle East, Lebanon has now slipped into the ranks of closed autocracies. Decades of corruption, sectarian rule, and foreign meddling have left the country reeling — and the past year brought assassinations, mass displacement, and Israel’s full-scale war against Hezbollah in the south. With its economy in free fall and its political system on life support, Lebanon stands at a crossroads: could shifts in regional power, efforts to disarm Hezbollah, and a change in leadership pave the way for recovery, or will instability deepen?

The coming weeks may prove decisive in Europe’s long struggle to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On Aug. 28, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany announced they will trigger the “snapback” sanctions mechanism. Whether Europe’s gamble succeeds will determine both the future of non-proliferation and the credibility of Europe as a strategic actor.

The most striking thing about Donald Trump’s foreign policy at the seven-month mark of his second administration is how it has failed to improve America’s overall strategic position in the world. It is still early days, but the Trump team’s frenetic flurry of actions, coupled with attention-seeking and often incendiary rhetoric, has served to obscure a poor record of scoring significant international wins for America.