Syria-Lebanon relations: from contested history to uncertain diplomatic path

Report by Bassam Abou Zeid, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

Lebanon has long been described as Syria’s “vulnerable flank,” a phrase repeatedly used over decades to justify Syrian involvement in Lebanese affairs regardless of the ruling system in Damascus.

The dispute between Lebanon and Syria has existed since the proclamation of Greater Lebanon, established under a French Mandate. Supporters of unity between the two countries opposed this decision, arguing that Greater Lebanon emerged from the concept of “Greater Syria” and that separating Lebanon from Syria was a French-British colonial partition of the Levant.

A key point in the historical record is that from 1920 to 2008, a span of 88 years, Syria did not establish formal diplomatic relations with Lebanon. There were no embassies or exchanges of ambassadors during that period. 

The absence of diplomatic ties went beyond protocol and reflected Damascus’ longstanding reluctance to fully recognize Lebanon as a sovereign and independent state.

This position predates both Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad. It reached its height in 1976, when Syrian forces entered Lebanon and established decades of direct influence.

Although Syrian troops withdrew in April 2005, Syrian influence in Lebanese political affairs persisted in various forms for years afterward.

There was one notable exception to this trajectory. On March 25, 1959, Lebanese President Fouad Chehab met President Gamal Abdel Nasser, then president of the United Arab Republic, on the border. Chehab secured Nasser’s implicit acceptance of inviolable borders and equal sovereignty, effectively acknowledging Lebanon as a separate political entity.

That understanding, however, remained personal and political in nature and did not translate into formal institutional or diplomatic recognition.

Syria is now under new leadership headed by President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The question remains whether recognition of Lebanon will continue to shift as a political position or evolve into a more stable framework grounded in clearly defined borders and shared economic interests.

The answer, this time, does not depend on Lebanon alone.