 |
| Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa |
American and Israeli pressure is increasing to push Syria towards engaging in a confrontation with Hezbollah, but the data indicates that Damascus prefers to control the borders and avoid any new regional conflict.
After repeated reports in the American and Israeli media about US President Donald Trump’s desire to expand the circle of confrontation with Hezbollah by putting pressure on Lebanon and involving other regional parties, primarily Syria, the political and field data do not yet indicate that the new Syrian leadership, headed by Ahmed al-Sharaa, intends to engage in a direct military confrontation of this magnitude.
Despite the increasing talk of security coordination between Washington and Damascus, or the possibility of opening a Syrian front against Hezbollah, informed sources confirm that the Syrian approach is based on avoiding escalation and sliding into a confrontation that could ignite the Syrian-Lebanese border and open the door to a conflict whose consequences would be difficult to control.
Damascus understands that any military involvement at this stage would place a significant burden on it, given its ongoing efforts to rebuild state institutions, stabilize internal security, address economic crises, and manage complex relationships with the United States, Turkey, Arab states, and Europe. Furthermore, its commitments to Washington focus on border control and preventing arms transfers, not on engaging in open warfare.
The cautious Syrian response to the recent bombings in the country came after some parties tried to link them to Hezbollah in order to raise the level of tension, before initial investigations pointed to the involvement of the "ISIS" organization, which renewed the focus on the danger of extremist organizations and their attempts to exploit any security vacuum.
As for the reports that spoke of Syrian military buildups near the Lebanese border, informed sources denied their accuracy, considering them to be part of the media and psychological warfare accompanying the regional conflict, rather than reflecting actual field movements.
Conversely, Lebanon cannot afford to engage in a new confrontation, given its escalating political, economic, and security crises. Any escalation on the border with Syria could exacerbate internal divisions and threaten the country's fragile stability.
From this perspective, pushing Syria and Lebanon towards a direct confrontation primarily serves Israel’s interests, which may benefit from opening an additional front that drains Hezbollah and shifts the course of the conflict into the Syrian and Lebanese interior.
Turkey, which wields considerable influence within the new Syria, appears keen to prevent any further security escalation, given its potential repercussions on its interests. It seeks to consolidate stability, strengthen the authority of the Syrian state, and open economic channels with neighboring countries—objectives that are incompatible with any outbreak of conflict in the region.
Accordingly, Damascus appears to be facing a delicate equation: committing to controlling the borders and containing international pressures, without being drawn into a war that could return the region to the cycle of chaos from which it is trying to escape.
