Lebanon is approaching three critical, urgent, and perilous deadlines that will determine its near and distant future, at a time of sweeping transformations stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean, and from Yemen to Ukraine.

The United States and Israel are pressing ahead with their project to “reshape the Middle East,” while Iran, its allies, and its regional axis are fighting back with their own vision of a “reshaped Middle East.” In this confrontation, every proposal advanced by Washington and Tel Aviv serves their plan, while every move by Tehran and its partners seeks to thwart it.

By the dictates of both politics and geography, Lebanon has become a cornerstone for the success of either project, the coveted prize, and simultaneously both the key and the lock. Inevitably, Lebanon is now the stage where much of this struggle will play out, and its future hinges on the outcomes of three major issues.

The first challenge is the renewal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose mandate expires at the end of August. Within the UN, there is a heated dispute: Washington and Tel Aviv are pushing to terminate UNIFIL’s mission, while France, the Europeans, and Arab partners are advocating an extension, albeit with some adjustments to its rules of engagement. Lebanon insists on maintaining the force, both as a witness to Israeli violations of the ceasefire and as a deterrent against turning the south into an open battlefield.

Yet, some argue that U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposals for southern Lebanon — conveyed by his envoy Tom Barrack and aide Morgan Ortagus to Israeli strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer — were meant to preempt the UN decision. Trump floated the idea of creating a “Trump Economic Zone” on the ruins of destroyed Lebanese border villages, alongside a gradual Israeli withdrawal from five occupied hilltops. Such a move, observers suggest, anticipates what could be UNIFIL’s final mandate renewal.

The second challenge lies in Israel’s expected response to Lebanon’s declared principle that only the state should hold weapons. Analysts believe Israel will not fully endorse Washington’s plan but may instead use it to draw Lebanon into direct negotiations aimed at securing the peace treaty Tel Aviv has long sought.

The notion of a “Trump Economic Zone” on the border has revived memories of 1983, when negotiations produced the May 17 Agreement. At the time, businessmen — backed by politicians — bought swaths of land along the southern border in anticipation of tourism and economic projects that would thrive in an “era of peace” with Israel. The collapse of that deal killed the projects but not the ownership, which makes Trump’s proposal anything but random.

Such a zone, U.S.-sponsored and devoid of "Hezbollah"’s presence, would create a buffer between Lebanese communities in the south and Israel’s northern border, while barring displaced villagers from returning. Only those working in its institutions and factories would be allowed in. This would achieve Israel’s long-sought objective of pushing "Hezbollah" north of the Litani River.

The model echoes Trump’s earlier idea of a “Middle East Riviera” in Gaza, a plan to pacify the conflict with economic projects, even if that meant erasing Palestinian presence in the strip or placing it under U.S. management in form and Israeli control in substance.

In parallel, Israeli–Syrian talks are reportedly underway in Paris to outline a security agreement, with preparations for a possible meeting in New York between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, under Trump’s auspices, during the UN General Assembly.

For now, Israel seems unwilling to commit to any withdrawal or ceasefire until it sees Lebanon begin implementing exclusive state control of arms.

The third challenge is the Lebanese government’s own decision to enforce the principle that only the state holds weapons. The army is expected to submit its operational plan to the Cabinet early next month. Military leadership, however, will reportedly demand broad political and national consensus to support and shield the plan, to avoid confrontation with "Hezbollah".

The weight of these three deadlines is crushing. Renewing UNIFIL’s mandate will have significant repercussions. Settling with Israel remains immensely complicated, with the ball still in Tel Aviv’s court. And the question of disarmament, the knot of knots, is the hardest of all. Beginning with Palestinian arms will not resolve it, for the root cause remains Israeli aggression, compounded now by the Syrian factor.

Lebanon, caught between competing visions for the Middle East and three looming decisions, stands once again at the mercy of regional and international powers, its destiny intertwined with battles far beyond its borders.