President Donald Trump has an opportunity to do something no American president has managed in nearly half a century: end the war between Israel and Lebanon for good.
Last Thursday, the US announced a 10-day cease-fire “to enable peace negotiations between Israel and Lebanon”. The State Department statement – reportedly agreed to by both governments – marked a significant diplomatic shift. It included an affirmation that “the two countries are not at war,” a commitment to work toward “full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” as well as “achieving a permanent agreement that ensures lasting security, stability, and peace.”
As Lebanese, Israeli, and American teams prepare for their first-ever trilateral leaders summit, it is time to reflect on this opportunity and lessons from the past.
The following study discusses the role of Lebanon’s gold reserves in the establishment of a currency board and evaluates four policy options: a true currency board, constrained central bank reform, full dollarization, and a unified managed float. Gold reserves are relevant under all four. The conclusion is consistent across them: no monetary framework, however carefully designed and however well backed, can substitute for the prior political decision on who bears Lebanon’s losses and how the state will finance itself sustainably.
Israel’s escalating campaign against Iran-backed Hezbollah is rapidly turning Lebanon into one of the most unstable fronts in the wider US-Israel confrontation with Iran — pushing an already fragile state to the brink. The war is tearing at Lebanon’s sectarian and political fabric, displacing Shiite communities and deepening polarization between Hezbollah and its rivals.
China’s expanding role in the Middle East is often framed as geopolitical rivalry with other global powers, including the United States, Russia, India, and others; but this lens obscures the strategic subtlety of Beijing’s approach.
Operation Epic Fury has created a dramatic opportunity in Lebanon that the US cannot afford to miss. Sustained leadership and support for the Lebanese Armed Forces can result in real disarmament, eliminating Hizballah as an Iranian proxy, and dealing Tehran another massive defeat that would further undermine the Iranian regime and help bring about its collapse.
Once again, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have dragged Lebanon into a war. But there are differences today. These differences are a cause for hope.
Hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj are joined by MEI Senior Fellow Fadi Nicholas Nassar to discuss Hizballah’s role in the escalating conflict in the Middle East and the implications for Lebanon. A day after the United States and Israel launched a joint military campaign against Iran, Tehran’s Lebanese proxy fired missiles at northern Israeli territory. Israel responded swiftly and forcefully, and Lebanon’s government and population now fear the Iranian-backed militia is dragging the country back into war. The conversation explores the broader repercussions of Hizballah’s actions against the backdrop of a widening war in Iran and Lebanon’s quickly evolving political climate. Nassar also outlines recommendations for how Lebanon can move forward as a sovereign and effective state.
Today’s decision taken by the Lebanese government — to declare all of Hizballah’s security and military activities illegal — is a landmark development. But how the government and the Lebanese Armed Forces implement this directive now that a new round of attacks has actually taken place will be the ultimate test of their credibility.
Trying to capture US President Donald Trump’s proudly unpredictable approach to foreign policy in fixed policy documents is inherently difficult. Surprise, leverage and improvisation are not bugs in Mr Trump’s world view; they are features. Yet the administration has now attempted this exercise twice: with the release of the National Security Strategy last December and the National Defence Strategy this January.
In the first year of his second term in office, US President Donald Trump focused considerable time and energy on the Middle East, but the results so far have been uneven. This report assesses the US government’s actions in the region over the past 12 months, from January 2025 through January 2026.
Whether the truce between Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces holds or collapses will have major implications for neighboring Turkey, which has long-standing interests in Syria, but recent developments already point to a win for Ankara.
One of Donald Trump’s achievements was to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza, even if an imperfect one.