When Iran was firing missiles at Arab capitals in the recent war, Damascus was safe. The post-Assad leadership even sensed an opportunity in the trade disruptions caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey supporting plans for alternative land routes through Syria.
Tehran and its proxies largely stayed away from attacking Syria because the US had evacuated most of its bases in the country before the war. The US military largely left Syria after Washington admitted the new government to the international coalition against ISIS at the end of last year.
Washington also expanded a normalisation with Damascus, lessening the need for troops, which were mostly geared for anti-insurgency operations.
The US still retains enormous influence in Syria, and President Donald Trump projects himself as a benefactor of the former Al Qaeda operatives now in power. Mr Trump even boasted that he had almost installed President Ahmad Al Shara, whose rise to power in December 2024 was supported by Turkey and helped by Israel's pounding of Hezbollah, the most powerful militia backer of the former regime.
However, when Mr Trump recently signalled that Syria could “finish the job” against Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Israel slow to advance on the group's pockets in the country’s south, Mr Al Shara distanced himself from the prospect. On Sunday, Mr Al Shara said he wanted Syria to do business with Lebanon, not to attack it, despite what he described as Hezbollah’s complicity in Assad-era crimes.
“We are still searching for the bones of our children in the streets and in mass graves,” Mr Al Shara said.
On Monday, a passenger ferry service between Lebanon and Syria restarted after a two-decade halt. Lebanon has acted as a business springboard for Syria, whose economy was relatively closed off, and Lebanese banks held billions of dollars of Syrian deposits. An undetermined portion of these deposits evaporated after Lebanon’s 2019 financial meltdown.
The Syrian leader has opened channels to Russia and China and even said he would talk with Hezbollah if it was in Syria’s interest. However, as many leaders have learnt, it could be costly to say no to Mr Trump, whose confidant and envoy, Tom Barrack, regularly meets Mr Al Shara.
At the same time, Syria is licking its wounds from the civil war, and a confrontation with Hezbollah would be costly. Turkey, Mr Al Shara’s most powerful regional backer, is also keen for Lebanon to turn into a quagmire for Israel. The two countries have been competing in Syria and have troops in the north and south of the country.
“Al Shara knows that he could be looking at a resounding defeat if he attacks Hezbollah” without better equipment and a bigger build-up and preparation, said a Syrian source in contact with several of the country’s military commanders.
The dilemma facing Mr Al Shara emanates from the competing interests of his outside backers and his tendency, since succeeding Bashar Al Assad, to try to accommodate all of them, especially since the state coffers are empty. For the foreseeable future, he will remain in need of outside support even to keep the machine of the state operational.
An added factor is the unpredictability of Mr Trump, who one day appears like a hawk on Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies, then complains that Israel has been too aggressive in its quest to destroy the group. Mr Trump has also acquiesced to Iran, which has tied the survival of Hezbollah to the outcome of the current talks with the US. However, Mr Trump has been presenting Mr Al Shara as a possible weapon in the drive to neutralise the group and strip it of its weapons.
The Syrian source said that Mr Al Shara did not rule out acting against Hezbollah during meetings with Mr Barrack, the most recent of which was last week in Damascus, according to the source.
However, Mr Al Shara has pointed out to Mr Barrack that it will require billions of dollars in equipment, particularly drones, and training to bring the Syrian military to the level that could damage Hezbollah significantly, the source said. They added that the rear supply lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, near the border with Syria, were discussed in meetings between US and Syrian military officials.
These lines are mostly in Shiite areas seen as supportive of the group and particularly averse to intervention, especially by the Sunni troops of Mr Al Shara.
At the beginning of the Iran war, Mr Al Shara deployed elite forces across the border from Hezbollah strongholds to curb the smuggling of weapons to the group. Contrary to reports, there has not been any significant additional deployment since, according to Lebanese and Syrian sources.
Lebanon was under Syrian control from the end of the civil war in 1990 until the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.
Hezbollah, together with Tehran, has had a near-monopoly on Lebanon’s foreign policy for decades. The intervention of Iran, Hezbollah and other Tehran proxies was crucial to Bashar Al Assad’s survival in the Syrian civil war from 2011 to 2024.
A Lebanese security source said that Mr Trump “said it casually that Syrians can take care of Hezbollah. There are no indications on the ground that any movement is imminent, but nothing is guaranteed” given the “very bad” security situation in Lebanon.
The source predicted “an even worse situation” if the US-Iran talks do not solve “the question” of Hezbollah, with the coming weeks “critical for Lebanon's internal security”.
The US is also mediating peace talks between Lebanon and Israel and wants to launch a similar process between Syria and Israel, a prospect that has received little support from Turkey
Another Syrian source who was briefed by Turkish officials said that Mr Trump could also be swayed by Turkey and Arab countries, who “are presenting Al Shara as a factor for regional stabilisation” who could curb “not just the ambitions of Israel, but also its enemies”.
“The Americans have become convinced that there can be no winner in the Middle East,” the source said. “If Al Shara can discipline his men and make the transformation [away from extremist political Islam], then there is a better chance for the perpetual wars in the region to stop.”
He added that “this is the moment for peace” and that “the problem is that America is relying on strongmen to achieve it, without regard to popular demands for freedoms and democracy, and the internal volcanoes these could cause”.
