In the midst of the devastating economic crisis afflicting Lebanon, the “technical steps” in the Eastern Mediterranean go beyond their superficial meanings, and become political and security decisions with broader dimensions. The Israeli newspaper “Maariv” highlighted, in a report, the visit of President Joseph Aoun to Greek Cyprus in January 2026, which coincided with the maritime border demarcation agreement concluded between the two countries weeks ago. The report considered that this visit is not just an ordinary diplomatic move, but rather an indication of a gradual shift in Lebanon’s attitudes towards the West, which directly affects the balances in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
The report stated that the visit was officially presented with the aim of strengthening bilateral relations, and coincided with Greek Cyprus assuming the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, a step that carries clear political symbolism, as Beirut seeks to reopen the doors towards Europe, and search for an umbrella of financial and political support in light of the difficult internal circumstances.
The “Maariv” report stated that the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Greek Cyprus defines maritime borders and sets the legal framework for gas and oil exploration operations. Supporters in Lebanon believe that this agreement is necessary to attract international companies and revive hopes for achieving future revenues that may contribute to alleviating the severe financial crisis, amid the deterioration of public services, the worsening electricity crisis, and the decline in the state’s ability to carry out its basic tasks.
However, the report indicates that the “economic façade” hides deeper issues, most notably that the agreement was approved by a government decision in October 2025 without going through the full parliamentary ratification process, which sparked internal criticism about the constitutionality of this step and the possibility of giving up sovereign rights whose importance may appear in the future.
The “Maariv” report went further than just the agreement, considering that what is happening is part of a path that began to take shape after the political changes in Lebanon, especially since the election of a new president and the formation of a new government, which led to the opening of more regular channels with Washington and European capitals.
The report indicated that Western support for Lebanon is no longer unconditional, but rather has become linked to clear expectations related to reforms, security, and Lebanon’s regional trends, which has made Greek Cyprus turn into Beirut’s “gateway” to Europe, and a fulcrum in any plan to reintegrate Lebanon into the Mediterranean “arrangements.”
On the other hand, the “Maariv” report indicated that Türkiye views this development with concern, not only because of the content of the agreement, but because of the framework that it strengthens. According to the report, the agreement was concluded without the involvement of “Turkish Cyprus,” which Ankara considers a perpetuation of a political and economic reality that marginalizes its interests and the interests of the northern part of the island.
The report explained that energy projects in the Eastern Mediterranean have turned in recent years into tools of geopolitical pressure and not just economic cooperation projects, and that Lebanon’s practical inclusion in this axis reduces Turkey’s margin of maneuver and deepens polarization in the region.
One of the sensitive points addressed in the “Maariv” report is the link between the Cyprus Agreement and another path that began to take shape quietly, as it indicated that “technical” civil meetings were held in Naqoura in December 2025 between Lebanese and Israeli representatives with American mediation.
The report stated that these meetings were presented as having a limited framework and did not carry a direct political nature, but their accumulation may open a sensitive door to the path of “gradual integration” of Lebanon into a regional system with “Israel” as its center, without an official announcement of any normalization.
The “Maariv” report also stopped at Hezbollah’s position, considering that the party did not express public objection to the agreement with Cyprus and did not seek to disrupt it, but described this as “calculated silence” that does not necessarily reflect approval.
According to the report, the party avoids entering into a direct confrontation so as not to be accused of obstructing any opportunity for economic rescue, especially in light of the mounting internal and external pressures surrounding its weapons file and its role in the next stage, while the level of suspicion remains high regarding any path that might approach, even indirectly, the interests of “Israel” in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The “Maariv” report concluded by noting that Lebanon faces a delicate equation: searching for an economic outlet across the sea, without falling into the trap of alignments that might turn the “energy agreement” into a gateway to a political and security conflict with influential regional parties.
While the agreement with Greek Cyprus is presented as an economic rescue project, the report believes that behind the scenes there are larger calculations related to influence, axes, and balances in the Eastern Mediterranean, where nothing is completely “technical,” and no step is calculated on paper only.
