As the year comes to a close, the developments in Lebanon compel observers, analysts, and historians to examine the country’s past three decades with strict adherence to objective historical standards, setting aside regional or partisan biases.

Although Lebanon was not the only Middle Eastern country to experience major transformations resulting from Israel’s ongoing conflict - which has affected around eight countries - and although its changes were not as profound or historically significant as those in Syria, this does not lessen the importance of revitalizing the state project there. In fact, the first ten days of the year marked the dawn of a new era, with the formation of a new government that coincided with efforts to reinvigorate state institutions. These developments had a significant impact, particularly in destabilizing the so-called “axis of resistance,” which had long exercised regional, Iranian-rooted influence over Lebanon’s authority, decision-making, and political control.

A thorough review of the year’s constitutional, political, security, economic, and social events reveals a rare point of consensus among Lebanese, despite the country’s unique and fragile composition that usually makes unified opinions nearly impossible. The overarching issue in Lebanon is not simply the dismantling of illegal weapons and their confinement to the authority of the legitimate state. It runs deeper: Lebanon, repeatedly subjected to experiences that have tested its resilience, risks losing the strength of a guarantor state - one capable of upholding the constitutional order, full sovereignty, and deterring regional powers from violating its land, security, and historical identity, which it has often struggled to protect amid excessive exploitation of its vulnerabilities.

It was the first year to directly test the revival of the state idea, driven by the underlying factors that prompted both internal and external forces to act decisively - first by filling the presidential vacancy with the election of Army Commander General Joseph Aoun, and then by appointing former head of International Court of Justice judge Nawaf Salam as Lebanon’s Prime Minister.

In reality, internal Lebanese factions were not fully aligned with influential countries such as the United States and Saudi Arabia, which supported the rise of the Aoun-Salam duo. This misalignment was evident in the widespread upheaval that followed the presidential election and the appointment of the prime minister. It demonstrates that the core objective of the supporting countries, reinforced by the internal momentum surrounding the new leadership, revolves around - and continues to focus on - the revival of the Lebanese state in its entirety. This context helps explain recent developments regarding the stance of sponsoring countries toward Lebanon, particularly in relation to Israel, and the progress - or delays - of the political-military plan to disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani River, with implications for extending the process to the north of the Litani and other regions of Lebanon.

In the past three months, the United States has, demonstrably, restrained Israel from launching a new and potentially far more catastrophic war than last year’s 66-day conflict between the Israeli state and Hezbollah - a war that cemented the party’s historic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, at the top of its list of martyrs while severely weakening its military and human capabilities.

Today, the specter of this threat looms constantly, leaving the idea of the state walking a tightrope over a perilous abyss.