Lead:

Lebanese editorial voices are intensely focused on the shifting dynamics between Washington and Tehran, with particular attention to how potential U.S.-Iran agreements could reshape Lebanon's precarious position. Columnists simultaneously assess Saudi Arabia's renewed diplomatic engagement in Beirut, the implications of proposed Israeli-Lebanese border negotiations, and the broader question of whether regional powers—including Syria—might be drawn into renewed military confrontations. The discourse reflects deep anxiety about external actors determining Lebanon's fate.

Voices & Positions:

In An-Nahar, multiple columnists debate Trump's negotiating strategy. One analyst argues that "negotiations by bombs" represent a fundamental shift in Trump's approach, suggesting the U.S. simultaneously pursues diplomatic channels while maintaining military pressure on Iran—a calculated escalation strategy rather than genuine de-escalation. Another contributor contends that from an objective standpoint, America and Israel have gained advantage, but through rhetorical framing favoring Tehran's narrative, the Iranian system achieves psychological victory domestically.

In Ad-Diyar, former minister Wadih al-Khazin characterizes current U.S.-Iran tensions as an "open clash of wills" rather than conventional negotiations, with neither Washington nor Tehran truly seeking war. Separately, an Ad-Diyar analyst warns that Trump's suggestion that Syria intervene militarily against Hezbollah mirrors dangerous precedents, cautioning Lebanese leaders not to repeat Syria's negotiation mistakes with Israel.

Both publications note Saudi Arabia's coordinated political and economic outreach, with An-Nahar framing Riyadh's renewed engagement as targeting presidential relations while Ad-Diyar emphasizes accompanying trade concessions signaling longer-term investment commitment.

Tension & Convergence:

Writers converge on perceiving external manipulation of Lebanese affairs—Saudi, American, and potentially Syrian involvement—as the dominant threat. They diverge sharply on whether current negotiations represent genuine diplomatic progress or dangerous escalation theater. Optimists see diplomatic space opening; pessimists read escalation disguised as negotiation. Most columnists express skepticism about Lebanon's agency in these processes.

Editorial Takeaway:

The dominant voice today is deeply apprehensive that Lebanon remains a pawn in great-power competition, with negotiations ostensibly benefiting external powers while Lebanese interests remain subordinate to regional rivalries.