President Donald Trump has again floated the possibility of tasking Syria with fighting the Lebanese Hezbollah, saying that interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa “would be more precise” than Israel in targeting the terrorist group inside Lebanon.
This statement is misguided. For one, the idea of involving Syria in Lebanon alarms Lebanese from all sects, regardless of whether Syrian troops would be sent to fight Hezbollah. Many Lebanese remember nearly three decades of Syrian military occupation, which ended in 2005. During and after Lebanon’s civil war, Syrian soldiers and intelligence services committed abuses and human rights violations against the Lebanese population.
During and after Lebanon’s civil war, Syrian soldiers and intelligence services committed abuses and human rights violations against the Lebanese population.
Syrian forces entered Lebanon in 1976 as part of the so-called Arab Deterrent Force, a mission ostensibly established to halt the fighting among Lebanon’s warring factions during the civil war. Although the force operated under an Arab League mandate, Syrian troops constituted its overwhelming majority. Rather than serving as a neutral peacekeeping force, Syria gradually entrenched its military presence, establishing a long-term occupation that shaped Lebanese politics and security dynamics for nearly three decades.
While the circumstances today differ from those of 1976, the historical precedent remains. Although al-Sharaa ruled out Trump’s suggestion in June 2026 that Syrian forces intervene in Lebanon, a future shift in political and military conditions could revive the idea.
There are historical sensitivities between Syria and Lebanon. Even the suggestion of another Syrian military presence in Lebanon could further inflame political and sectarian tensions, not only between the people of both countries but among the Lebanese themselves. Al-Sharaa, a Sunni, enjoys popularity among many Sunnis in Lebanon, particularly in the northern city of Tripoli. A direct military confrontation between his government and the Shi’ite Hezbollah could heighten sectarian tensions and risk drawing Sunni and Shi’ite communities into broader conflict.
Trump is correct on one point: Al-Sharaa would probably welcome the opportunity to send Syrian forces into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. However, al-Sharaa and his allies have their own motivations, including deep grievances toward the Lebanese Shi’i group for its direct military support for the Assad regime during the Syrian conflict. Any Syrian intervention could take on the character of a campaign of revenge, which could have unattended consequences.
But even if there is political will in Syria, the country does not have the capacity and bandwidth to implement it. Syria has a long way to go to recover from the devastation of more than a decade of civil war. Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, the country’s military, economy, and infrastructure remain in ruins. Syria’s military includes many extremist factions whose existence has been largely defined by hostility toward non-Muslims and non-Sunni communities.
The need to eliminate Hezbollah’s threat is critical, but the means of achieving that objective are equally important.
Therefore, evidence does not support the claim that Syrian forces would be more precise than Israeli forces. If anything, it would be the other way around.
Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon has been conducted differently from the campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Israeli forces have demonstrated great precision in targeting Hezbollah operatives and their hideouts across Lebanon. Although civilians have died, civilian casualties in Lebanon have been significantly lower, considering the scale of the conflict.
Hezbollah, like many other terrorist organizations, operates in civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields. Much of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure is embedded in urban centers, including densely populated neighborhoods in southern Beirut and other parts of Lebanon. This has made it difficult to target its assets without risking civilian casualties.
The need to eliminate Hezbollah’s threat is critical, but the means of achieving that objective are equally important. U.S. policymakers should recognize that. Trump often advances unconventional ideas to address challenges in the Middle East and elsewhere. However, unconventional ideas do not always translate to sound policy. In this case, such a proposal could have devastating consequences, not only for Lebanon-Syria relations but also for the broader stability of the region.
