The June 22 suicide bombing of a church in Damascus marked the deadliest attack on Syria’s Christian community since the fall of the Assad government. During Sunday Mass, an armed man stormed the Greek Orthodox Church of Prophet Elias, opened fire, and detonated an explosive vest. Twenty-five worshippers were killed, including women and children, and more than 60 were injured. The church, built in the eighth century and central to Orthodox Christian life in the capital, sustained major damage. The attack has raised questions about the capacity of Syria’s transitional authorities to prevent sectarian violence.
No group claimed responsibility for the attack. The Syrian Interior Ministry attributed it to the Islamic State. The ministry also pointed to possible involvement by former regime security operatives who remain active in Syria’s fragmented landscape. Both groups, it warned, seek to destabilize the political transition and to spread fear.
This was the first large-scale terrorist attack in Damascus since the collapse of the Assad regime. The transitional authorities—drawn from former opposition factions and figures based in northwest Syria—had pledged to restore stability. Instead, the bombing exposed weaknesses in both security and governance.
The bombing exposed weaknesses in both security and governance.
Earlier, in March 2025, armed groups launched raids from northwest Syria into areas around Homs and Latakia. These towns long had been home to Christian and Alawite communities. Fighters killed dozens of civilians in a single day using heavy weapons. Witnesses described the attacks as sectarian. Reports linked the perpetrators to armed movements based in Idlib Province.
After the March attacks, Greek Member of the European Parliament Nikolas Farantouris visited Syria and warned that Christian communities with deep historical roots now face extinction. He accused the authorities of concentrating power under religious factions while avoiding responsibility for allied violence.
The Damascus bombing prompted swift reactions from Greece and Cyprus, which raised the issue at a European Union emergency meeting. Cyprus condemned the attack as a warning of extremist threats. Greece pledged to escalate the matter within the Union. Farantouris submitted a formal question urging a fact-finding mission, a review of aid, and protections for minorities—an effort backed by members of Greece’s New Democracy party.
Outside of Athens and Nicosia, international reaction was limited. Comparable attacks elsewhere often draw stronger responses. The silence in this case raises questions about the consistency of Western commitments to religious freedom.
The June 22 bombing reflects a broader trend. Armed groups in Syria continue to target religious communities, pursuing both military and political objectives: to displace populations, punish dissent, and reshape demographics. Transitional authorities have not shown the capacity—or the willingness—to prevent such violence or hold perpetrators accountable.
For Western governments, the implications are strategic as well as moral. If the transitional authorities cannot or will not guarantee the safety of religious minorities, foreign recognition and assistance risk reinforcing impunity.
First, all diplomatic and financial engagement with Syria’s transitional authorities should depend on clear, enforceable guarantees for the protection of Christians, Alawites, and other vulnerable groups.
Second, foreign policymakers must assess the composition and conduct of the leadership now in Damascus. A political transition that empowers actors with histories of sectarian violence will not produce lasting stability.
Third, an international mechanism—under the European Union or United Nations—should monitor attacks on religious communities and sacred sites. Such a system would provide early warnings and support evidence-based diplomacy.
Diplomatic and financial engagement with Syria’s transitional authorities should depend on clear, enforceable guarantees for the protection of Christians, Alawites, and other vulnerable groups.
This attack highlights more than the threat of a resurgence by the Islamic State. It also exposes the growing risk of regional destabilization. The decision by United States leadership to withdraw forces from northern Syria—turning its back on Kurdish partners and effectively pushing them toward agreements with the Ahmad al-Sharaa government, which maintains close ties with Ankara—is one such decision. Another is Washington’s insistence on shutting down detention centers holding Islamic State fighters and their families. These choices form part of a broader pattern that is fueling instability.
The American policy of disengagement from Syria, including the withdrawal of nearly all military personnel and, more recently, the evacuation of two U.S. bases just days before possible escalation in Iran, has left a power vacuum. The resulting vacuum has already raised concern in Israel, where officials see Syria’s shifting balance of power as a strategic threat.
If Western governments wish to shape Syria’s future constructively, they must act with consistency and resolve. Silence in the face of sectarian violence weakens long-standing principles—and the West’s influence in the region.
