US President Donald Trump on Tuesday insisted that Damascus would do a “better job” and suggested that Israel allow Syria to “deal with Hezbollah.” The proposal, which President Trump has floated twice this month, touches on some of Lebanon’s deepest anxieties, including Syria’s long history of interference in its internal affairs and the country’s new ruler’s jihadist past.
It is unclear what exactly President Trump is suggesting, such as sending the Syrian army to southern Lebanon or forcibly cutting off arms supply routes for the Syrian army. Either option would stoke fear within Lebanon.
Syria has dominated Lebanon’s political scene for nearly 30 years. Syrian troops were first sent to the neighboring country during the 1976 civil war, ostensibly as peacekeepers, but they remained long after the fighting ceased, maintaining a long military presence that many consider an occupation.
That period was marred by thousands of disappearances and deaths, building mistrust among the Lebanese people and complicating sentiments toward Syria. Any new intervention by Syria in Lebanon is likely to be highly unpopular.
The Iranian-backed Shiite Lebanese militant group Hezbollah intervened on behalf of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war to maintain a vital arms supply route between Iran and Iraq. It provided critical military support to Assad’s brutal seizure of power.
Their relationship was built on a common enmity with Israel and a common alliance with Iran. It ended in 2024 with the fall of the Assad regime and the rise of President Ahmad al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda jihadist. He expelled Iran-backed militant groups from the country and has since tilted toward the West, repeatedly praised by President Trump as a “tough guy” and “warrior.”
Last week, Al-Shallah denied reports about Syria’s intervention in Lebanon, saying what was being circulated was “completely false.”
A possible intervention in Syria by a hardline Islamist-based regime also risks upsetting the delicate sectarian balance that underpins Lebanon’s political system, especially given the leadership’s past hostility toward Shiites, who make up a significant portion of Lebanon’s population.
Michael Young, a Lebanon expert and senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center, called it “an absolutely ridiculous idea.”
“The sectarian aspect here is very dangerous. It will divide Lebanon and it will be a disaster. I think it is too much of a Pandora’s box. If he (Shara’a) does that, he will make a big mistake,” he told CNN.
The prospect of Syrian forces invading Lebanon is likely to ring alarm bells. Many of them come from factions with Islamist and jihadist backgrounds and are accused of atrocities against minorities within Syria’s borders.
Lebanon is a multisectarian society with more than a dozen ethnic and religious minorities, including the region’s largest Christian population.
Some religious groups opposed to Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon are still likely to prefer the extremist group to the Syrian army, Young said.
“There is also the possibility that the Salafist-dominated Syrian army could invade… That would cause panic among Christians, Druze and Shiites. They would not welcome this,” he said. “It would strengthen Hezbollah rather than weaken it.”
Questions remain about how tightly al-Sharah holds power across Syria, especially with regard to the military, which Young says would compound the dire nature of such a decision.
Syria’s potential participation in efforts to address Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon also risks pulling Lebanon back into the regional quagmire it was trying to overcome. The government is trying to regain control of its own security in the face of Hezbollah’s overwhelming military power.
Lebanon’s sovereignty is already under strain, with Israel refusing to withdraw its troops from the country’s south. A senior US official told CNN on Monday that the Trump administration’s new ceasefire agreement with Iran does not include a requirement for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
But President Trump made clear his dissatisfaction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling reporters on Tuesday that he needed to “take more responsibility when it comes to Lebanon.”
President Trump has clashed with Netanyahu multiple times in recent months, believing that the Israeli leader and his government are making it more difficult for the United States to reach a deal with Iran by attacking Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Netanyahu responded publicly for the first time to the U.S.-Iran framework at a press conference Monday night, saying he and Trump “do not always see eye to eye.”
“He is the president of the United States and I am the prime minister of Israel. I have a responsibility to Israel’s security interests, and it needs to be done wisely.”
He also clarified that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Gaza or Syria to “defend our country.”
In a harsh response to President Trump’s Syria proposal, Israel’s far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir said: “The idea of putting our security in the hands of ISIS terrorists, beheaders and murderers of young girls will not happen.”
