Hezbollah’s role in Syria: 10 years that reshaped West Asia 

BEIRUT — On the first anniversary of Syria’s collapse, Hezbollah’s intervention stands as one of the most consequential, and persistently distorted, events in contemporary regional history. 

By the time Hezbollah entered the Syrian battlefield around 2013, the country was no longer a landscape of “popular demonstrations.” It had become a heavily militarized arena saturated with tens of thousands of foreign fighters, newly declared extremist factions, and coordinated assaults tearing through Syrian cities and spilling across Lebanese borders. 

Opposition figures were openly declaring that after taking Damascus, their next march would be “straight to the southern suburbs of Beirut.”
Hezbollah articulated its rationale from the outset, through speeches, documents, and media interviews. 

The movement argued that it was not defending the regime against its people, but confronting a geopolitical project sponsored by Washington, bankrolled by some Persian Gulf Arab monarchies, facilitated by Western intelligence networks, and eagerly exploited by the Israeli enemy. 

The rise of extremist armies in Syria, Iraq, and beyond threatened to engulf the region, erase entire communities, and redraw its map through mass extermination.

Those who championed the so-called “revolution” understood exactly which powers stood behind it: the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—three actors who openly sought the collapse of the Syrian state, the same state that for decades had served as a strategic artery for resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine.

Then, the Israeli occupation entity wanted Damascus to fall precisely because it wanted that artery severed.

A year ago, the Syrian state finally collapsed, and Abu Mohammad al-Julani entered Damascus without firing a shot. The massacres that followed—in coastal towns, in Sweida, in every region where minorities lived—laid bare the true nature of the forces claiming to bring “freedom.” 

The Israeli occupation regime openly celebrated the fall of the Syrian government, expanded its influence to nearly one-sixth of Syrian territory, dismantled core military infrastructure, and struck deep into Damascus, including the Ministry of Defense, without encountering resistance from Syria’s new rulers.

Al-Julani himself eventually appeared beside former U.S. officials, pledging alignment with Washington’s regional vision.

This collapse coincided with renewed Israeli aggression in Gaza and Lebanon and a coordinated U.S.–Israeli campaign to reengineer the region’s political landscape.

Some local factions, once again, chose to side with this tide—undermining Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements at the very moment they faced an existential assault.

Undoubtedly, Hezbollah paid a heavy price for its decision to counter extremists in Syria. Thousands of its fighters were killed or wounded, alongside far greater numbers of Syrians, Iranians, and Iraqis who fought extremist militant groups. 

Yet these sacrifices were not futile. Hezbollah’s involvement broke the momentum of extremist groups at their peak—groups that could have swallowed entire states. 

The forces now ruling Damascus rose only after immense geopolitical shifts; without the decade-long delay created by those who resisted on the ground, the region would today be unrecognizable.

That delay changed everything. It bought the time required for vast quantities of supplies, experience, and deterrence capabilities to reach Lebanon and Gaza—capabilities that reshaped every battlefield that followed.

Hezbollah’s stance remained consistent. It opposed the American invasion of Iraq despite the crimes of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It chose to fight in Syria despite clear disagreements with Damascus’ internal governance. 

Further, Hezbollah was guided by principle, not sectarian instinct: defend the region from foreign domination, confront the Israeli enemy, and protect the unity and security of its peoples.

Syria’s tragedy revealed a truth long buried beneath slogans and propaganda: that geopolitical integrity—not romantic rhetoric—is what shields nations from disintegration. 

Hezbollah’s intervention was such a shield. And its decision to fight in Syria did not merely influence events—it altered the trajectory of West Asia entirely.