President Donald Trump has publicly suggested that Syria, under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, should take responsibility for countering the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah. Speaking at the G7 summit in France on June 16, 2026, Trump stated that if Israel cannot effectively combat the group without causing significant civilian casualties, Syrian forces should intervene instead, according to reports from AFP.
Why is the US calling for Syrian intervention?
President Trump’s proposal stems from his dissatisfaction with the current Israeli military campaign in Lebanon. According to the AFP report, Trump argued that the ongoing conflict has resulted in an unacceptable number of civilian deaths. He explicitly criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy, suggesting that Israel should act with greater responsibility toward the Lebanese population. Trump stated that the military operations have been too slow and have involved excessive force, specifically referencing the destruction of apartment buildings during operations targeting individual militants.
Ahmed al-Sharaa rose to power in Syria following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Despite acknowledging Al-Sharaa’s background as a former member of Al-Qaeda, President Trump credited him with unifying the country after a 14-year civil war.
Can Syria effectively manage Hezbollah?
President Trump maintains that the Syrian government is better positioned to neutralize Hezbollah than the current Israeli military approach. During the G7 forum, Trump asserted that Al-Sharaa is “very good” at handling the group and harbors a personal dislike for them. While Trump referred to the Syrian leader as “not a good person,” he framed the potential for Syrian intervention as a pragmatic solution to minimize the collateral damage currently seen in Lebanon. There is currently no public confirmation from the Syrian government regarding their willingness or capacity to undertake such an operation against the group.
How does this compare to previous US policy?
The suggestion marks a sharp departure from traditional US-Israel military alignment. Historically, US administrations have supported Israeli security operations against Hezbollah as a regional counterweight to Iranian influence. By openly criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu and proposing that a third party—specifically a regime with a complex history like Syria’s—take over the mission, Trump is signaling a shift toward prioritizing the reduction of civilian casualties over total military victory by Israeli forces. This public critique of Netanyahu highlights a growing rift in diplomatic expectations between the White House and the Israeli government.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does Trump think Syria is the right choice?
According to his remarks at the G7, Trump believes the Syrian leadership has the local knowledge and motivation to manage Hezbollah more efficiently than Israel, which he claims is using excessive force.
What is the current status of the conflict in Lebanon?
As of June 2026, the conflict involves ongoing military operations by Israel against Hezbollah. President Trump has characterized these operations as having “too many people killed” in civilian areas.
What are your thoughts on this shift in regional strategy? Share your perspective in the comments section below or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on Middle Eastern security developments.
