U.S. Urges Damascus to Take Over Lebanon Fight as Israel Struggles

President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested handing responsibility for dealing with Hezbollah to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, telling Israel to step aside and let Damascus take over. The proposal that has alarmed Lebanon, divided regional experts, and drawn a firm rejection from Syria itself.

Trump first publicly raised a Syrian role in Lebanon during an NBC Meet the Press interview on June 5, calling for a more “surgical” campaign against Hezbollah and saying Washington could “recommend Syria.” His comments escalated significantly at the G7 summit in Evian, France, on June 16, when he told reporters he had “suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah.”

It remains unclear what exactly what Trump is proposing; whether deploying Syrian troops to southern Lebanon, or having Syrian forces cut off weapons supply routes. Either option carries significant consequences.

Syria’s relationship with Lebanon is among the most combustible historical precedents in the modern Arab world: Syrian forces first entered Lebanon in 1976, nominally to mediate the civil war, and only fully left three decades later. Damascus has rejected any military role, and experts warn the proposal risks handing Hezbollah a political lifeline rather than defeating it.

What Trump Said

Speaking on the sidelines of the G7 summit during a bilateral meeting with Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on June 16, Trump said, “Israel’s fighting Hezbollah for too long, and too many people are being killed. You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody.” He added: “I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because to be honest with you, I think they’d do a better job of doing it.”

Trump’s most recent remarks came June 21, when he told Fox News he was “close to giving it over to Syria,” criticizing Israel for being unable to act without “knocking buildings down.” He did not explain what “giving it over” would entail in operational terms.

Who Is Ahmed al-Sharaa

Sharaa, 43, served roughly five years in a U.S. prison after traveling to Iraq to oppose the 2003 invasion. He went on to found al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, before leading Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the group that toppled Assad in December 2024. Trump has repeatedly praised Sharaa as a “tough guy” and a “strong leader,” saying the Syrian president “has pulled that country together very quickly” and “protected everything that I’ve asked for.”

Syria’s Response

Sharaa has sought to counter the growing speculation at every turn. During a meeting with dignitaries from the Damascus countryside on June 11, he described reports of an impending Syrian entry into Lebanon as unfounded rumours. Ahmed Muwaffaq Zaidan, an adviser to the Syrian presidency, later told Al Arabiya that Washington had proposed Syrian involvement during the regional escalation, but that Damascus had rejected any military or security role in Lebanon.

In an interview with Al Mashhad TV on June 21, Sharaa said Trump’s comments had been misinterpreted. He said Syria’s priority was to end the war and Israeli bombardment, and that Damascus had discussed political, economic and social approaches with Washington, not military ones. “Our vision is based on supporting the Lebanese state once again, strengthening its institutions, and seeking a solution that everyone believes in,” he said. “We are looking for economic channels between Lebanon and Syria, not military ones.”

Why the Idea is Appealing and Why Experts Say It Would Backfire

Trump’s proposal stems from a real frustration: Israel’s campaign in Lebanon has been costly, internationally damaging, and politically inconclusive, while Hezbollah remains too entrenched to disappear on its own.

Syria’s new government is not part of the regional axis that previously linked Damascus, Tehran, and Hezbollah. Unlike its predecessor, it inherited a war-ravaged state seeking economic recovery, regional reintegration, and international legitimacy. That shift creates a surface logic to Trump’s argument.

But regional analysts warn the proposal would achieve the opposite of its intent. If Syrian forces crossed the border, it would allow Hezbollah to recast its arsenal not as a challenge to the Lebanese state but as a shield against foreign intervention, reopening traumatic memories from the 1975–90 Lebanese Civil War, when Syrian forces invaded Lebanon and remained for almost three decades.

Michael Young, a Lebanon expert and senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center, called the idea “completely absurd.” “The sectarian dimension here is very risky. It would divide Lebanon and be a disaster. I think it’s too much of a Pandora’s Box,” he told CNN.

The Contradiction With U.S. Officials

Trump’s statements have appeared to contradict an earlier denial by U.S. envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, who dismissed reports that Washington had pressured Damascus to send forces into Lebanon as “false and inaccurate.” The gap between Trump’s public remarks and his own envoy’s position has added to uncertainty about how seriously the proposal is being pursued at a policy level.

Iran-backed Hezbollah intervened on behalf of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war, providing crucial military support to preserve a vital arms supply route linking it to Iran and Iraq. That alliance ended with Assad’s fall in 2024 and the rise of al-Sharaa, who ejected Iran-backed armed groups from Syria and has since leaned towards the West.