Talk of Syria’s role in Lebanon has moved to the forefront of the regional scene after remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump about the possibility of Damascus handling the Hezbollah file sparked wide speculation. The remarks coincided with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing an emergency security meeting to discuss the possibility of Syrian forces entering Lebanon.
Damascus, however, has stressed its rejection of any military intervention, saying its approach is based on supporting the Lebanese state and respecting its sovereignty. Syria says it is seeking economic and security partnerships, not a military return to the Lebanese arena.
Despite this official denial, Israel appears unconvinced by the Syrian account and is dealing with developments through the logic of advance preparation for any possible shift in the balance of power on its northern border. This comes especially amid the changes Hezbollah has undergone after the war, the reshaping of regional balances, and the growing role Damascus is seeking to regain after years of retreat.
Between talk of postwar arrangements and Lebanon’s historic rejection of the return of Syrian forces, scenarios vary over the nature of the role Damascus could play in the next phase, and whether it will remain confined to political and security frameworks or develop into other forms of intervention.
A Security Mindset of Suspicion
Despite repeated Syrian assurances that there is no intention to send forces to Lebanon, Tel Aviv has raised its security readiness, amid Israeli estimates that the regional scene is witnessing a redrawing of roles and that political statements may not always reflect what is happening behind the scenes. This is especially the case with Trump’s repeated remarks about a possible Syrian role in Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to hold an “emergency” security meeting to discuss the possibility of Syrian forces entering Lebanon, against the backdrop of repeated remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump about the possible entry of Syrian forces into Lebanese territory.
In contrast, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa rejected the military option in dealing with Lebanon, while stressing cooperation with the Lebanese government based on mutual respect for sovereignty.
Professor of public international law and international relations researcher Amer Fakhoury believes Israel is dealing with the Syrian Lebanese file through a security mindset of suspicion. It does not base its assessments only on official statements, but also on field and regional changes, foremost among them Hezbollah’s declining influence and the possibility of arrangements that grant Damascus a new role in Lebanon, even in an indirect political or security form.
Fakhoury told Enab Baladi that Israel’s lack of conviction in the Syrian denial does not mean it has confirmed information about imminent military intervention. Rather, it reflects Israel’s desire to remain prepared for any change in the balance of power on its northern border.
Israel Does Not Rely on Any Party
For his part, Jordanian political and security expert Amer Sabaileh considers that the Israeli position is consistent with Tel Aviv’s security doctrine, which is based on not relying on any party to protect its security, whether in Syria or Lebanon.
He told Enab Baladi that Israel still views the Syrian arena as unstable, so it is natural for it to deal with any talk of a possible Syrian role with extreme caution. He considered the Israeli security meeting part of preventive preparations rather than a response to confirmed field indicators.
Indirect Roles
U.S. and Israeli statements raise questions about the nature of the role Damascus could play in Lebanon, but field and domestic indicators suggest that any Syrian military return would collide with major political obstacles, shifting the discussion more toward other forms of presence.
Amer Fakhoury believes that the scenario of direct military intervention remains extremely weak because it would recall the period of Syrian military presence in Lebanon and face broad Lebanese rejection, in addition to its political and military cost and the possibility of opening a direct confrontation with Hezbollah.
He pointed out that the more realistic scenario is indirect roles, such as strengthening control over the Syrian border to prevent arms smuggling, or limited security coordination with the Lebanese government, without Syrian forces entering Lebanese territory.
Amer Sabaileh also ruled out all military intervention scenarios, saying current Syrian forces do not have the capacity or the international environment that would allow them to carry out a mission of this scale.
He added that even managing the Syrian-Lebanese border remains a challenge, making talk of intervention inside Lebanon closer to political circulation than executable scenarios.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on 24 June that Israel strongly opposes any deployment or entry of Syrian forces into Lebanon, amid Israeli concerns that Damascus may have begun taking practical steps in this direction.
According to the sources, Netanyahu called for the security meeting as part of preparations for a possible scenario involving Syrian military movements inside Lebanon.
A Heavy Burden on Damascus
As the Syrian government works to consolidate internal stability, rebuild the economy, and improve its Arab and international relations, a question emerges over whether involvement in the Lebanese file would give it additional leverage or return it to crises it has moved beyond.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa had said that President Trump expressed annoyance over what is happening in Lebanon and is seeking to stop the war.
He added that talk of Syria’s role in searching for a safe and calm solution had been misunderstood by some as meaning that Syria would enter Lebanon the following morning.
Al-Sharaa explained that Syria can be relied on to support the Lebanese state, strengthen its official institutions, and create connections among Lebanese forces, including Hezbollah. He considered partial solutions to involve major problems.
Amer Fakhoury differentiates between military intervention and a political role, stressing that any military intervention would be a heavy burden on Damascus because it would revive the file of Syria’s previous tutelage and place it in confrontation with the Lebanese interior and the international community.
A limited political or security role, however, could be a gain if it is pursued through Lebanese institutions and respects sovereignty, allowing Syria to appear as a partner in supporting stability and controlling its borders, rather than as a party seeking to restore its former influence.
Amer Sabaileh, meanwhile, argues that Syria does not need to shoulder additional burdens at this stage and should instead focus on its internal affairs, because involvement in the Lebanese arena could create political and security complications that do not serve its interests, whether the intervention is political or military.
Syria’s Handling Does Not Affect Israeli Strategy
Amid talk of rearranging the Lebanese scene after the war, a question arises over whether Damascus might find an interest in reducing Hezbollah’s influence, or even playing a role in this file, especially with the decline of Iranian influence in some regional arenas.
This is especially relevant since President al-Sharaa affirmed his belief in dialogue, considering that closing it means heading toward war. He stressed that Syria wants to solve the Hezbollah problem and keep Lebanon alive, adding that Damascus is ready to sit with everyone.
Professor of public international law and international relations researcher Amer Fakhoury explained that Damascus is not interested in entering a direct confrontation with Hezbollah, because this would be interpreted as serving external agendas and could place it in confrontation with Lebanese and regional forces.
But he explained that it is in Syria’s interest for there to be a strong Lebanese state and official institutions capable of managing the weapons and border file, leading gradually to a decline in the party’s influence within an internal Lebanese path, not through direct Syrian intervention.
He emphasized that Damascus can strengthen its regional presence through supporting stability and diplomacy, not through involvement in new military conflicts.
Meanwhile, international security expert Amer Sabaileh believes that the Hezbollah file for Israel has become part of an independent strategy that does not rely on any other party. Therefore, talk of a Syrian role in confronting or supporting the party does not change Israeli calculations.
He pointed out that Israel now manages each front separately, so any Syrian dialogue or understanding with Hezbollah will not be an influential factor in the current Israeli strategy, which is based on dealing directly with sources of threat according to its security vision.
The post Israeli Concern Grows Over Syria Role in Lebanon appeared first on Enab Baladi.