The Syrian president links Lebanon’s statehood to Hezbollah’s disarmament, rejects military intervention in Lebanon, and calls for a shift away from decades of confrontation with Israel toward a more realistic and pragmatic regional approach.
The Lebanese aspect of the interview that Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa gave to Al Jazeera on July 26 is not a minor detail. Rather, it can be considered an indication of what he is thinking about Lebanon, as he gave clear answers on the conflict with Israel, the civil war, the shared border, and “empowering” the Lebanese state to fulfill its international commitments and, most importantly, on Hezbollah and its weapons.
In this interview, al-Sharaa did not renew his offer to hold a meeting with Hezbollah. Instead, he went far beyond that, to the point of considering that the condition for the Lebanese state to exist is the disarmament of Hezbollah, the abandonment of the Iranian plan that established armed organizations within states, and the implementation of the Taif Agreement in both of its aspects: restricting weapons to the state and defining the nature of political relations among the Lebanese.
Al-Sharaa based his positions on the premise that any harm that befalls Lebanon also harms Syria, just as any harm that befalls Syria also harms Lebanon. He said that Syria cannot conceive of a state existing in Lebanon while Hezbollah fighters are deployed along its borders, expressing the view that no state can be established with an armed party within it that moves from it into other countries to take part in fighting, as Hezbollah did when it “participated in killing Syrians.”
In fulfillment of his commitments to support the Lebanese state and empower it to fulfill its obligations, al-Sharaa announced that he would place the cards Syria possesses and they are not few at the disposal of the Lebanese authorities, while reiterating his refusal to intervene militarily in Lebanon. He considered that solutions are not always military, given that they can sometimes veer into triggering an escalation of the situation.
This means that, in his approach to the Lebanese issue, al-Sharaa is focusing on Hezbollah’s weapons and considers them a threat to Lebanon itself as well as to Syria. Therefore, they must be removed and the issue brought to a close. Consequently, the willingness he had previously expressed to remove the obstacle to holding a meeting with Hezbollah is based on the equation of giving up its weapons.
This approach alone is enough to thwart the possibility of taking the idea of rapprochement with Hezbollah to the level of cooperation, limiting it instead to efforts to bring an end to the existence of the armed party.
This is entirely at odds with Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem’s announcement in his latest speech that he was prepared to hold a meeting between the party and the Syrian leadership. Qassem considers that he will not accept any interference with his weapons and threatens to treat anyone who might reach out for those weapons in the same way as Israel.
But the most important point of all was reflected in al-Sharaa’s approach to the conflict with Israel, in response to the argument that the weapons Hezbollah is being asked to relinquish are weapons intended to confront Israel, its occupation, and its ambitions.
This approach reflects a notable shift in political discourse, as al-Sharaa considered that the policies that have governed the region for nearly eight decades, and that were based on hostility toward Israel, have failed to achieve the results they claimed they would, but instead led —in his description to destruction, poverty, and decline.
This suggests that the Syrian president is calling for a shift from ideological rhetoric to a more realistic and pragmatic approach to managing the region’s volatile relations.
According to this view, the priority is no longer to be found in open-ended conflicts, but in seeking arrangements and security agreements that safeguard national interests and limit the cost of ongoing confrontations, in what is seen as an attempt to redefine the concept of security and stability in the region, away from slogans that, in the speaker’s view, have failed to produce practical results over the past decades.
This approach put forward by al-Sharaa converges with the approaches of the Lebanese authorities and the majority of Arab countries, and receives a positive response from the international community. It also breaks with the narrative underpinning the Islamic Republic of Iran’s strategy and Hezbollah’s slogans.
What al-Sharaa announced in this televised interview was the clearest statement he has made: on the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, he is unequivocal; on confronting Israel, he is “transformative”; and on the Lebanese state, he is “volunteering”!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
