Pushing Syria toward military intervention in Lebanon may weaken Hezbollah on paper—but in reality it risks reigniting sectarian conflict and plunging Lebanon back into civil war
By : Ya Libnan Editorial Board , Op.Ed.
Lebanon has been a battlefield for foreign powers for decades—but inviting Syria back into Lebanon could ignite the very civil war the country barely survived.
Washington is flirting with a reckless and deeply dangerous idea.
According to a recent Reuters report, the United States has encouraged Syria to consider sending forces into eastern Lebanon to help disarm Hezbollah. Damascus, however, appears far more cautious than Washington. Syrian officials fear that such a move could drag Syria into the widening Middle East war, provoke Iranian retaliation, and ignite sectarian tensions across both Syria and Lebanon.
Their concerns are well founded.
Disarming Hezbollah is necessary if Lebanon is ever to regain full sovereignty. Hezbollah has repeatedly dragged Lebanon into wars it cannot afford, most recently when it opened fire on Israel in support of Tehran on March 2—an action that triggered a devastating Israeli offensive across Lebanon.
But inviting Syrian forces back into Lebanon would be like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.
Lebanon’s tragedy has always been that foreign powers treat it as an arena rather than a sovereign nation. Iran armed Hezbollah and used it as a regional proxy. Israel now devastates Lebanese territory in the name of security. And now some in Washington appear willing to revive Syria’s old role in Lebanon under a new label—“assistance,” “border security,” or “stabilization.”
Lebanese have heard this language before. It never ends well.
Syria ruled Lebanon for nearly three decades after sending troops during the 1975–1990 civil war. What began as “peacekeeping” evolved into political domination that lasted until Syrian forces finally withdrew in 2005 following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Any Syrian military return today—especially under the banner of confronting a major Shiite force—would reopen old wounds and inflame sectarian tensions across a fragile region already on edge.
Lebanon is a delicate mosaic of Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, and others. Syria is similarly fractured. Introducing Syrian forces into Lebanon in the midst of a regional war could easily turn a dangerous situation into a full-scale sectarian confrontation.
Damascus seems to understand the risks. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has reassured Lebanese leaders that recent troop deployments near the border are aimed only at strengthening border control and internal Syrian security—not at intervening in Lebanon.
That caution is wise.
Lebanon’s president, Joseph Aoun, is pursuing Hezbollah’s disarmament carefully because the group still possesses a powerful arsenal and retains significant support among parts of Lebanon’s Shiite community. Any sustainable solution must therefore be Lebanese-led, gradual, and politically negotiated—not imposed by a neighboring country with its own sectarian divisions and a troubled history in Lebanon.
Foreign armies cannot restore Lebanese sovereignty.
Only a strong Lebanese state can do that.
If Washington truly wants to help Lebanon, it should strengthen the Lebanese Army, support Lebanese state institutions, and push for a political process that places all weapons under the authority of the Lebanese state. It should also stop entertaining dangerous fantasies about outsourcing Lebanon’s security to Syria.
History has taught Lebanon a painful lesson: every time outside powers try to “fix” the country with military solutions, they end up making things worse.
Encouraging Syrian intervention today would not stabilize Lebanon.
It could instead reopen the gates to another civil war.
And if that happens, the entire region—not just Lebanon—will pay the price.
