I have been writing to you from Lebanon for the past several days, following meetings with decision-makers, experts, and politicians, and living day-to-day alongside the people of Beirut.
In Beirut, two events are being followed with extraordinary passion, interest, and eagerness:
1. The first is the World Cup matches, with cafés, hotels, and public spaces across the city transformed into viewing venues equipped with giant screens to follow the games.
2. The second is the close and sensitive monitoring of news and details surrounding the American–Iranian agreement, and specifically what it means for the situation in Lebanon — including the possibility of a ceasefire that would lead to the return of the displaced, whose numbers have exceeded 1.2 million men and women who fled from the southern suburbs and the south to Beirut and the major cities.
This news comes at the start of the summer season, during which Lebanon's tourism and services sector depends on visits from tourists and expatriates.
As is customary in Lebanon, the media elite interprets any event or piece of news not according to its actual elements and facts, but according to the media outlet's own vision, inclinations, mood, political affiliation, and sectarian allegiance.
Lebanon's Shia, supporters of Hezbollah, repeat that the agreement is a victory for "Iran, which was not broken," and that Tehran was the one that dictated its terms to Washington.
Lebanon's Christians repeat that the agreement reflects the success of Donald Trump's pressure and US military operations against Iran.
Everyone — and I mean everyone — agrees on one single thing: the ambiguity surrounding Lebanon's future. The overriding question is whether the agreement means only a ceasefire on the Lebanese front as stated, without an Israeli army withdrawal, or whether it is a permanent ceasefire coupled with a full withdrawal.