Young believes that adding to this humiliation at this stage would be a grave mistake. Trying to impose a new political reality too quickly and significantly reduce Hezbollah’s power risks triggering a civil war. “Major decisions, when they are not taken by consensus in Lebanon, tend to generate sectarian conflicts,” he warned.

Indeed, the modern history of Lebanon has followed this well-known model. Sectarian feuds between the country’s major sects – Shia, Sunni, Christian and Druze – have escalated into violent feuds that rage until compromises and careful settlements are reached. And in their efforts to manipulate Lebanon’s eternal sectarian dance for their own regional ambitions or narrow national interests, outside parties – whether Iran, Syria, Israel or the West – have often had a devastating impact on the country, complicating its tangled relationships. policy.

A radical and non-consensual change therefore risks having disproportionate, chaotic and deadly consequences.

Today, Lebanon is particularly poorly able to cope with the current crisis. The country has been limping since its 2019 financial collapse, with 85% of the country below the poverty line even before Israel launched its ground incursion. And in 2020, Beirut was rocked by a massive port explosion, triggered by a huge quantity of ammonium nitrate stored in a Hezbollah-controlled warehouse. The explosion killed more than 200 people, injured 7,000 and caused property damage worth $15 billion.

The very last thing this struggling country needs is another war. The question is: how to get out of it?

The Lebanese themselves are at a loss for answers, but they know that much will depend on Israel’s intentions and precisely when it decides it has done enough to defeat and degrade Hezbollah. In the meantime, the country is on pause, unable to move forward and with few agencies, despite cries from outsiders for restructuring and change.