US President Donald Trump’s recent suggestion that Syria, rather than Israel, could re-enter Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah has alarmed many people in the country. For many Lebanese, it revives memories of prolonged Syrian interference, a period they would rather leave behind than relive.
Still recovering from nearly three decades of Syrian interference, which ended in 2005, large segments of Lebanese society still feel the trauma of that era, when the Assad regime exercised control over the country, and say they are unwilling to repeat the mistakes of the past.
“The ordinary Lebanese citizen feels panic at the idea of Syrians reasserting control through a military presence,” Col. (ret.) Jacques Neriah, a former diplomatic adviser to prime minister Yitzhak Rabin who was born and raised in Lebanon, told The Jerusalem Report.
“This is one of the biggest nightmares for the Lebanese,” added Neriah, now a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs. “People in Lebanon remember the humiliation they suffered while Syrian forces were present in the country. They recall the checkpoints and how badly they were treated.”
“They experienced this from 1976 to the mid-2000s, and they don’t want to go through it again,” he said.
Criticism for Israel
While Trump lashed out at Hezbollah for its actions, he also criticized Israel for not defeating the organization more quickly and pointed to civilian casualties caused by Israeli military operations in Lebanon.
“They don’t do anything without knocking buildings down,” Trump said in one comment, adding that he was close to “giving it to Syria,” in reference to combating Hezbollah.
He has repeatedly raised the idea of renewed Syrian involvement in Lebanon, leaving many in Lebanon concerned about a new US policy for their country. A Beirut-based journalist, who asked to remain anonymous as Lebanese law prohibits contact with Israelis, told the Report that as the country is still struggling to safeguard its sovereignty, its recovery largely depends on freeing itself from all forms of foreign influence.
Even though many Lebanese want to see Iranian-backed Hezbollah gone, the mere prospect of letting Syrian forces into their country sparks anxieties, the journalist said.
Asked whether most people would prefer Israeli or Syrian forces to fight Hezbollah, the journalist said both options were bad, but if there was a choice, he thought most would opt for the Israelis instead.
“In the case of the Israelis, if they come in, they eventually leave and do not try to take over the country. But as for the Syrians, if they enter Lebanon, they would entrench themselves, consolidate their power, and not want to leave,” the journalist theorized.
“Even if their intervention is supposed to help us address the Hezbollah problem, the Syrians will only create new problems for Lebanon in the future and fuel sectarian and political tensions,” the journalist added.
History of Syrian intervention
The Syrian military intervention in Lebanon dates back to 1976, shortly after the outbreak of the civil war. It was aimed at supporting the Christian camp against the Palestinian militias, particularly the PLO, whose leader, Yasser Arafat, was consolidating his power inside Lebanon after being ousted from Jordan.
Damascus sought to curb Arafat’s growing influence in Lebanon, viewing his presence there as a threat to Syria’s security interests. However, this alliance quickly unraveled when leaders of the Christian camp realized that Syria had no intention of withdrawing, but planned to maintain greater control over Lebanon.
Viewing the Syrians as occupiers, the Christian militias, most notably the Phalange led by Bashir Gemayel, chose to align themselves with Israel. In response, Syria turned against them and shifted its support to rival groups.
Syria not welcome
The Lebanese journalist who spoke to the Report said that most of the country’s various sectors and its leadership would not welcome Syria’s involvement, adding that he “hadn’t heard even one person speak positively about it.”
The journalist said that Lebanon’s Shi’ite community will not accept it, fearing they would lose their influence to the country’s Sunni community, who might become politically stronger with the support of the new Sunni leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
The Shi’ites, the core base of support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, fear that al-Sharaa will take revenge on them because of Hezbollah’s alliance with the Assad regime during the civil war in Syria, where many Syrian Sunnis were killed.
“Only a small group of Shi’ites who now oppose Hezbollah might reluctantly accept Syrian intervention to eliminate the organization, but only as a last resort if all other options have failed,” the journalist added.
As for Christians in Lebanon, the journalist continued, involving Syria is widely seen as a threat. They are concerned that al-Sharaa’s forces might target their communities and seek to establish the kind of control that former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad exercised over Lebanon during the 1980s and 1990s.
“They are also concerned that it would come at their expense and weaken their position in Lebanon,” the journalist noted.
The Sunni population, the journalist continued, is also not aligned with Ahmed al-Sharaa in mentality or ideology, despite their shared sectarian background.
“Sunnis in Lebanon don’t feel any real connection to him. They are generally moderate and modern and do not associate themselves with the radical jihadist ideas linked to him,” the journalist explained.
Playing a positive role
A Lebanese political observer now living abroad – who also asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from Hezbollah – told the Report that while Sunnis have long felt marginalized in Lebanon, recent changes, such as Hezbollah’s weakening and al-Sharaa’s rise, have given them hope for greater influence in the country, “even without the need for al-Sharaa to intervene directly or militarily.”
Al-Sharaa, for his part, clarified to Al-Mashhad TV that Syria’s involvement, if any, should focus on constructive engagement and not military intervention. He said that “his country could play a positive role in supporting Lebanon within a diplomatic framework, and through Lebanese institutions.”
The controversial Syrian leader reiterated his hostility toward Hezbollah, stating that “a deep Syrian wound has remained because of the atrocities carried out in Syria that Hezbollah was involved in.”
Nevertheless, he added, “I believe in dialogue, because the alternative is war.”
According to recent media reports, the al-Sharaa regime has deployed forces along a section of Syria’s western border with Lebanon, adjacent to a Hezbollah stronghold. The move was described as a defensive measure taken by the Syrian president.
“Many Syrians want the Syrian army to punish Hezbollah for its role in crimes committed in our country, and to deter the group from threatening Syria itself,” Issam Zeitoun, a Syrian activist living in Germany, told the Report.
At the same time, he said that “people see the American call for Syrian intervention to help disarm Hezbollah as a trap,” as the country is now trying to rebuild itself and recover from years of devastating war.
“It could draw Syria into the Lebanese quagmire and potentially spark a broader Sunni-Shi’ite war across the Middle East, precisely what Iran seeks,” said Zeitoun.■