Syria should intervene in Lebanon. Here’s why

Small states have often struggled to preserve their sovereignty when competition between regional and international interests is fierce. Their strategic importance frequently outweighs their ability to shape their own destiny, making them buffers, battlegrounds or prizes in wider contests. Lebanon has long exemplified this predicament.

For more than 170 years, Lebanon has rarely been insulated from outside intervention. From the European powers during the Mount Lebanon crisis of the 1860s to the successive involvement of France, Syria, Israel, the United States and numerous Arab states, its modern history has been shaped as much by foreign influence as by domestic politics. Few countries have experienced such sustained external involvement while maintaining the appearances of being sovereign and independent.

Today, Lebanon is at a crossroads. Hezbollah's military degradation, the collapse of the Assad regime, and the emergence of a new authority in Damascus have transformed the balance of power in the Levant. For the first time in decades, Syria and Lebanon have an opportunity to reconfigure their relationship to one of shared interests, not mutual fears.

Recent remarks by President Donald Trump suggesting that Syria could play a role in fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon have reignited a debate about Syria’s role in Lebanon that only a year ago would have seemed implausible. Of course Washington and Israel have their own strategic calculations, and this is grounds for caution. But there is also a broader question that should be considered: could a carefully negotiated Syrian role help stabilise Lebanon and accelerate Syria's reintegration into the region and the world economy?

The new Syrian administration has spent the past 16 months focused on rebuilding a country devastated by war. Although its record remains imperfect, it has demonstrated an unexpected willingness to accommodate Syria's religious and ethnic diversity - albeit with some unfortunate setbacks - and to prioritise stability in Syria and the region over ideological confrontation and the politics of revenge. The next step would be for Syria to assume the mantle of responsible regional leadership.

Syria has several reasons to consider assuming a greater regional role.

First, the new administration in Damascus has committed itself to a strategic realignment with the United States and its partners. Demonstrating that Syria can contribute to regional - and increasingly global - stability, would reinforce this shift. If undertaken with official Lebanese consent and international backing, helping to secure Lebanon from the clutches of an Iranian proxy group would signal that Damascus has abandoned the sort of interventionist model associated with the Assad era. 

Any Syrian intervention is likely to be surgical, intelligence-led, and closely coordinated with the Lebanese army top brass. For both countries, US military and technical support will be crucial. Concurrently, the door for negotiations and political settlements is likely to remain open. 

Second, Syria cannot escape its geography. Stability in Lebanon is inseparable from stability in western Syria. The porous frontier has long facilitated weapons trafficking, organised crime and the Captagon trade, enriching both the Assad regime and Hezbollah while undermining state authority on both sides of the border. Securing that frontier and dismantling the remaining criminal networks would benefit Syria, Lebanon and the wider region alike.

Third, the economic case is compelling. Syria and Lebanon possess deeply interconnected economies whose infrastructure has deteriorated through years of conflict and political paralysis. Greater coordination on border crossings, transport, electricity, ports, airports and energy infrastructure could reduce costs, stimulate investment and restore historic commercial links that once benefited both countries. Cooperation over Eastern Mediterranean gas development could further strengthen this partnership.

Lebanon’s immediate challenge remains, however, highly political. Despite suffering major military setbacks, Hezbollah remains the main obstacle to the Lebanese state's monopoly over the use of force. Successive governments in Beirut have been unable to resolve this challenge, while repeated Israeli military operations have inflicted enormous destruction without producing a lasting political settlement. Neither continued paralysis nor periodic wars offer Lebanon a sustainable future.

Lebanon's history suggests that profound internal crises have rarely been resolved without outside involvement. The Taif Agreement and the country's repeated political crises and settlements since have all reflected regional and international intervention to varying degrees. The challenge today is ensuring that any future role strengthens Lebanese sovereignty and ends the tutelage of Iran and its proxies. 

Critics will argue that the very notion of Syrian forces returning to Lebanon is politically impossible given the painful legacy. That concern is understandable. But the Syria of today is no longer governed by the Assads, and Lebanon's strategic alignment is not that of 1976 – or indeed of 2006. History should not be an obstacle to new arrangements that serve the interests of both states based on the needs and imperatives of today. 

Ultimately, Lebanon requires a durable political framework that fully restores the state's monopoly over force in all its territory while preserving its delicate sectarian balance. Any solution perceived as the triumph of one Lebanese faction over another is unlikely to endure. Likewise, continued Israeli military action cannot substitute for a political settlement that addresses the underlying security vacuum.

The Middle East is entering a period in which governments increasingly prioritise economic integration, functioning governance and pragmatic security partnerships over ideological competition and proxy warfare. If Syria wishes to establish itself as a responsible regional actor, Lebanon will be the first major test of that ambition.