Why Trump’s proposal for Syria to fight Hezbollah will send shudders across Lebanon

Trump’s Syria-Hezbollah Plan Sparks Fear in Lebanon

Why Trump s proposal for Syria – U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a controversial strategy on Tuesday, suggesting that Israel permit Syria to “take care of Hezbollah” in Lebanon. The idea, which has been raised by Trump twice this month, has unsettled Lebanese leaders and citizens alike. While the exact nature of the proposal remains ambiguous—whether it involves Syrian military deployment or the disruption of Hezbollah’s weapon supply lines—it underscores a deepening concern about Syria’s resurgence in regional affairs. The plan could reignite tensions in a country already grappling with political instability and the lingering effects of its own civil war.

Syria’s Long Reach

Syria’s influence over Lebanon stretches back nearly three decades. In 1976, Syrian forces first entered the neighboring nation as peacekeepers during the country’s civil war, a move that later solidified into a prolonged military occupation. Despite initial intentions to maintain stability, the Syrian presence persisted even after the conflict subsided, embedding itself in Lebanon’s political landscape. This era was defined by widespread disappearances, deaths, and a pervasive sense of control, fostering deep mistrust among Lebanese people toward Damascus.

Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite militant group, became a key ally of Syria during the civil war. By supporting former President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah helped secure vital arms routes connecting Iran and Iraq to Lebanon, strengthening its own power. However, this alliance shifted in 2024 when Assad’s regime fell and al-Qaeda-linked President Ahmad al-Sharaa took power. Sharaa, a former jihadist, has since distanced Lebanon from Iran-backed groups, expelling them from the country and aligning more closely with Western nations. His government has drawn praise from Trump for its “tough guy” stance, despite its Islamist roots.

The Sectarian Shift

The proposal to involve Syria in Lebanon’s conflict raises fears of a dangerous power realignment. Lebanon’s political system hinges on a delicate balance between sectarian groups, including a significant Shiite population and a substantial Christian community. If Syrian forces re-enter the country, they could deepen divisions, particularly given Syria’s historical antagonism toward Shiites. Analysts warn that such an intervention might inadvertently bolster Hezbollah’s position rather than weaken it, as the group has already demonstrated its ability to unite diverse factions under a common cause.

Michael Young, a Lebanon expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, described Trump’s plan as “completely absurd.” In a

interview with CNN, Young emphasized the risks: “The sectarian dimension here is very risky. It would divide Lebanon and be a disaster. I think it’s too much of a Pandora’s Box. He (Sharaa) would be making a big mistake if he did it.” Young’s concern is rooted in the fact that many Syrian troops come from Islamist or jihadist factions, which have been accused of atrocities against minorities in Syria. Their entry into Lebanon could trigger panic among Christians, Druze, and Shiites, who collectively form the nation’s diverse populace.

The extent of al-Sharaa’s authority over Syria’s military remains uncertain. Young pointed out that the president’s control is particularly shaky within the armed forces, which could exacerbate the risks of a Syrian intervention. This uncertainty highlights the fragility of Lebanon’s current situation, where its sovereignty is already under pressure from Israel’s ongoing military presence in the south. The Trump administration’s recent ceasefire agreement with Iran does not mandate Israeli troop withdrawal, further complicating Lebanon’s diplomatic and security challenges.

Hezbollah’s Resilience

Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon has long been a point of contention. While the group has faced opposition from some religious communities, its military strength and political clout make it a formidable force. Sharaa’s efforts to reduce Hezbollah’s influence have earned him support from Trump, but the president’s suggestion to bring Syria into the fray could undermine these gains. Hezbollah’s alliance with Iran, which has been a cornerstone of its power, would be further tested if Syria’s involvement led to renewed hostilities.

Sharaa’s administration has been praised for its assertive policies, including expelling Iran-backed armed groups from Syria. However, his government’s ability to sustain this approach is still debated. Young noted that Syria’s military might be a key wildcard in the equation, with its potential to reassert control over Lebanon’s affairs. This could push the country back into a regional conflict, a scenario Lebanon has sought to avoid since the end of the Syrian civil war.

Trump’s frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also influenced the proposal. In recent months, the U.S. president has clashed with Netanyahu, criticizing his leadership for complicating negotiations with Iran. Trump argued that Netanyahu’s attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon have hindered progress, leading him to advocate for a Syria-led solution. This stance reflects a broader strategy to weaken Hezbollah’s position while leveraging Syria’s historical ties to the group.

Regional Implications

The potential involvement of Syria in Lebanon’s conflict has broader regional implications. Lebanon’s government has been striving to reclaim its security autonomy, but the prospect of a Syrian military intervention threatens to drag the country back into the Middle East’s complex web of alliances and rivalries. The country’s multi-sectarian society, which includes over a dozen ethnic and religious groups, could face renewed turmoil if the proposed plan materializes.

Young’s analysis underscores the precariousness of Lebanon’s current situation. “You could potentially see the entry of a Syrian army dominated by Salafists,” he warned. “That would create panic among Christians, Druze, and Shias. They would not welcome this.” The Christian community, in particular, has historically been wary of Syrian influence, fearing a return to authoritarian control. Meanwhile, Shiites, who make up nearly half of Lebanon’s population, may find themselves caught between the competing interests of Iran-backed Hezbollah and a resurgent Syria.

Despite the risks, some Lebanese factions may still support a Syrian intervention if it aligns with their goals. For instance, groups that oppose Hezbollah’s dominance could see Syria as an alternative to the Shiite militant organization. However, the specter of Syrian forces entering Lebanon is likely to be a contentious issue, given the group’s history of military aggression and its ties to jihadist movements. The outcome of this proposal will depend on how effectively Syria can navigate Lebanon’s intricate political landscape without reigniting deep-seated divisions.

As the situation unfolds, Lebanon’s leaders will have to weigh the benefits of Syrian involvement against the potential for renewed conflict. The country’s ability to maintain its sovereignty and balance its sectarian groups will be tested in the coming weeks. Whether Trump’s plan will succeed or exacerbate existing tensions remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the proposal has already sent ripples of concern through Lebanon’s political and social fabric.