Follow Kritica on Google
Add Kritica to your favourite sources.
On 16 June 2026, during a press conference at the White House, US President Donald Trump stated that he had discussed with Syria the possibility of its involvement in containing Hezbollah, the Lebanese political-military group supported by Iran, which is designated by the United States, Gulf countries, the United Kingdom, and others as a “terrorist organisation”.“It's a smaller war, and Syria could help stabilise the northern border”(It's a smaller war and Syria could help stabilise the northern border), Trump declared, according to CNN, as if it were a game of draughts and not a hypothetical military offensive with incalculable geopolitical implications, but above all, with an undeniable human cost, which no one wants to pay.
The White House holder's words immediately raised concerns and questions about the increasingly complex relations between Damascus and the Land of the Cedars, and about the balance of power in the entire region.
A failed empire attempt
How one can hypothesise that a fragile and impoverished country like Syria, emerging from fourteen years of war, needing to regenerate and rebuild, wanting to leave war behind, might instead undertake a new war against a neighbouring country, on behalf of others, is a difficult line of reasoning to comprehend.
The response from Damascus, in fact, was not long in coming. «The United States president's statements are inaccurate and misleading. Syria is not part of any discussions concerning military operations in Lebanon. Syria will not act against Hezbollah. The relations between Damascus and the Resistance »Lebanese are clear and are not subject to negotiation," a Syrian Foreign Ministry official stated, as quoted by the state-run Sana agency.
The same statements were also reported by the pan-Arab media. Al Mayadeen, considered close to the Hezbollah movement and the Axis of Resistance. During an interview with broadcaster al Mashaad, al Sharaa added that if it served the interests of both Lebanon and Syria, he would be willing to sit down at the negotiating table with Hezbollah, against whom he fought for years during the Syrian war that began in 2011 and which a large part of Syrian civilians consider an enemy for its support of the regime. al-Assad. The authorities in Damascus do not appear to want to get involved and dragged into a new spiral of bloodshed, demonstrating that there are "no"s that can be said, even to someone like Trump, who was among the first to welcome them in their new role.
Israel, for its part, commented with a certain detachment; the Jerusalem Post reports the statements of a Tel Aviv defence official, according to whom “Any pressure on Hezbollah is positive”. Trump subsequently corrected his statements, stating that “the United States is not asking Syria to go to war”, adding that “if Syria decides to act to protect its borders and contribute to security ”regional, it would be a welcome step." One has to wonder if he would make the same statement regarding Israel's continuous interference in southern Syria and the hypothesis of a possible decision by Damascus to respond or exercise self-defence.
Since 8 December 2024, following al-Assad's escape in Russia, Israel has significantly intensified its military operations in Syria, regularly striking targets linked to Iran, Hezbollah, and allied militias deployed along the corridor connecting Damascus to the Lebanese border. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, between December 2024 and June 2026, Israel conducted over 85 attacks in Syria, causing more than 230 deaths, largely pro-Iranian fighters, but also civilians. Tel Aviv maintains that “the operations aim to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah,” while Damascus and Tehran they accuse Tel Aviv of wanting to “prolong regional instability”.
The story of a painful relationship
On regional instability, much has been said and much has been written. According to a common saying in the Near East, “Syria has the remote control for Lebanon: when it wants, it switches it on and creates chaos, but when it wants, it switches it off.” This is not a literary quote, but describe the complex relationship between the two countries, who before the divisions imposed by the Sykes-Picot agreements had good neighbourly relations and no rigid borders, being part of that geographical and cultural area called Bilad ash-Sham, the Countries of the Levant. The years between 1976 and 2005, which saw a massive Syrian military presence in Lebanon, under the command of the al-Assad dynasty, particularly damaged the ties between the two neighbours.
Unhappy years for the two peoples, who share the same language, practically identical customs and traditions, but who have found themselves in the roles of invaded and invaders, with a worsening of relations that is not easy to manage, especially along the border areas, where friendships, mixed marriages and blood ties have never been reflected in the dividing lines drawn with pencil and ruler by international decision-makers.
The attack that caused the death of the Prime Minister of Beirut was the straw that broke the camel's back. Rafic Hariri in 2005, when a car bomb containing approximately 2,500 kg of TNT devastated the Ain al-Mreisseh seafront. In addition to Hariri, considered one of the most influential politicians of the time, twenty-one other people lost their lives. The protest by thousands of Lebanese, who initiated the so-called Cedar Revolution, led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops, as many leads regarding responsibility for the attack pointed to Damascus. An investigation by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, established by United Nations, concluded in 2020 that Hezbollah members were involved in the operation, without attributing direct responsibility to the movement's leadership or the Syrian government. The Hariri affair still represents a reflection of the complex internal balances within Lebanese society today, as well as the unspoken truths that govern relations with Syria.
Today, as Lebanon mourns over 4,000 victims, 10,000 injured, and over 400,000 displaced, the population is calling for an end to hostilities, and in neighbouring Syria, over 40,000 civilians, particularly women and children, have found refuge. This is no small matter, considering that nearly a million Syrians, in previous years, were themselves taken in by Lebanon, albeit in highly precarious conditions. Human movements cannot be contained within the designs of political geography and forge different, unstoppable routes.
Today, Syria is returning to its historical nature as a land of welcome, even though of the 14 million people forced into exile and displacement, only just over a million and a half have returned to their homes, or to the rubble of them. These movements from afar are perhaps imperceptible, they do not weigh on the scales of the choices of “others”, of those who decide and command new wars. The peoples of the region, who are young, with a median age of just over 23 years, are tired of paying with their lives the price of destructive decisions in which they are rarely involved.
They are those civilians who say “There is no place like home”The neighbour, before the house“, thereby emphasising the importance of having quiet, peaceful neighbours, because only then will one's own house be so too. The stability of all the countries in the Near East is a good that everyone aspires to, for generations, but which still seems to be a distant, unattainable goal.
© Kritica – Partial reproduction permitted (no more than half the article) by citing the source and including the link at the beginning.
PHOTO CREDITS: © Syrian Presidency/APA Images via ZUMA Press Wire via ANSA