Analysts compete to explain the causes of wars, their trajectories, and the outcomes they will produce. People try to understand why their loved ones were killed, displaced from their homes, impoverished, or thrown into the depths of misery, often believing that what they see on the surface may answer their questions.

On the other hand, the social sciences attempt to analyze or explain wars in a scholarly effort to derive theories that provide an appropriate interpretation of this human madness called war. Yet, none of these erases or justifies the tragedies inflicted on people by the crimes of others.

Some researchers consider war a necessity of industrial or modern society, based on two justifications:

First, war is an economic necessity, as it stimulates the economy through wartime consumption, primarily the use of ammunition and weapons, and later drives investments when the war subsides, on the basis that reconstruction of destroyed areas or repair of damaged infrastructure is required. Victims are rarely mentioned in this context.

Second, war is a necessity of modernity, as it dismantles social structures that certain social groups may have grown weary of, replacing them with new structures acceptable to those previously dissatisfied with prior conditions.

The difference between the two interpretations is that in the first case, the beneficiary is the active participant in the war, who then reaps whatever gains are possible. In the second case, the beneficiary is often not an actor but gains secondary benefits from the actions of others. In other words, their gain comes incidentally or as a byproduct rather than as a primary reward.

Here, we must pause to examine the model on which wars move from one place to another globally. Why do wars erupt in certain regions and then spread to others? What determines conflicts in different parts of the world?

Two factors define this trajectory: the availability of resources and the deep state.

The deep state in the world determines the course of wars based on available resources, which may include energy, geographic corridors, strategic locations, or rare materials. It is unfortunate for some peoples to possess such resources.

The deep state determines war and peace in modern societies, as well as the survival, destruction, prosperity, or suffering of communities that represent weak links in the international structure.

If we adopt this perspective in analysis, we can understand much about politics and wars, because politics itself is war without weapons.

In this context, we can understand the wars in the Antiochian Levant, the fragmentation it has undergone, and the ongoing intensification of this fragmentation. The resources of this region—human, material, and geographic—have brought it calamities and made it a victim of history and geography, as it has suffered throughout its history from conquests, wars, and the ensuing disasters affecting human lives and destinies.

Lebanon remains, due to its demographic, religious, political, and cultural composition, the weakest link in the political-military struggles occurring in the region. Some have ironically remarked that wherever clouds gather, the rain falls upon us, yet this rain brings mud rather than nourishment when a society is unprepared to benefit from the Creator’s generosity; thus, what is meant as a blessing turns into a curse, leaving society in continuous decline.

May the Lord grant us sufficient wisdom to properly value the resources He gives us and place them in service of humanity in His holy name.