Eurasia Press & News
Since the eruption of the Israeli–Iranian war on the morning of Friday, 13 June, Syrian public sentiment has reflected a layered and often contradictory emotional and political landscape. Many Syrians expressed clear satisfaction with Israel’s strikes on the Iranian regime, while others took grim solace when Iranian missiles reached Tel Aviv and Haifa. Then came the unexpected “Trumpian peace shock”—the abrupt declaration by the U.S. president of the war’s end—which did little to address the deeper issues exposed by Syria’s popular reaction. If anything, it underscored how this moment may stand as one of the most revealing expressions of the contemporary Arab collective consciousness at a historic regional juncture—after which nothing will remain unchanged.
This apparent ambivalence is not without cause, shaped as it is by the long and painful accumulation of Syria’s national tragedy. Yet as the conflict escalated, it became increasingly evident that Syria stood neither outside the flames nor immune to their fallout. The pressing question now is: what must Syrians do?
From the outset of Israel’s campaign—codenamed “Rising Lion” by Prime Minister Netanyahu—and its strikes on strategic Iranian military and civilian targets, including the assassination of senior commanders from the Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force as well as nuclear scientists, many Syrians responded with visible relief. To them, these strikes symbolised a long-delayed reckoning: long-awaited justice for Iran’s bloody involvement in the Syrian war.
Iran’s retaliation, however, was swift. That same evening, it launched a surprise missile barrage on Tel Aviv and Haifa under the banner “Operation True Promise III.” A different section of Syrian society now rallied behind this response, interpreting it as divine retribution for Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Many reiterated their steadfast support for the Palestinian cause and voiced renewed hostility towards Netanyahu’s government, which continues to occupy Syrian territory and poses a tangible threat to Damascus.
Thus, Syrians found themselves caught in oscillation—passive spectators at one moment, anxious participants the next—torn between guarded hope and deepening apprehension.
Throughout the conflict, Syrians followed developments on both fronts with equal intensity, watching Israeli offensives and Iranian responses unfold in real time. Meanwhile, state media maintained a critical tone towards Iran while remaining officially silent. No public statements were issued regarding violations of Syrian airspace by either side, nor about reports that Israeli troops detained children in Quneitra for filming military vehicles. The transitional government adopted a stance of deliberate calm and official silence throughout the war.
The conflict reached its climax with the U.S. strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility on the night of 21–22 June. The mission—executed by B-2 bombers and named “Operation Hammer Night”—was lauded by President Trump as a decisive success that “wiped Fordow off the map.” His follow-up call for peace—“Now is the time for peace”—received scant global attention, but marked a significant shift in the regional and international landscape. In Syria, it evoked a complex emotional response: exhaustion, fear, and tentative relief.
The following morning, the Syrian government issued decrees raising public-sector wages—a move that briefly reassured the population. Yet reassurance quickly gave way to horror following a devastating terrorist bombing at Mar Elias Church in Damascus’s Dweila’a district, killing dozens of civilians.
Although the Ministry of Interior swiftly blamed ISIS, the attack’s timing and broader political context raised uncomfortable questions. Was it an isolated event, or a spark in a wider regional conflagration? Could Syria withstand the inevitable blowback from a war that showed signs of escalation beyond its borders?
Syria has endured enough
On the ground, signs point to ongoing fragility. Military activity has resumed along parts of the border with Iraq, fuelling fears that Syria could soon be drawn in—not as a mere observer, but as a reluctant actor or direct target, pushed by circumstance or coerced by regional power dynamics.
The economic impact has been no less severe. Global oil prices surged amid speculation over the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz, fuelling fears of disrupted supply chains and potential spillover into oil-rich Gulf states. For Syria’s already fragile economy, the risks are immediate and multifaceted: energy shortages, ruptured trade with Arab neighbours, imported inflation, and currency depreciation. Meanwhile, Syria’s traditional allies may soon be too embroiled in their own crises to extend meaningful support.
Even after President Trump’s unexpected 23 June announcement—made following a symbolic Iranian strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar—that the war would “end within hours,” Syria’s vulnerability has persisted. This was a conflict that shattered longstanding taboos, upended traditional rules of engagement, and unleashed a scale of destruction unseen in years. Its impact will reverberate not only across geopolitical maps and power balances, but deep within the social and political fabrics of the region.
Syria has endured enough. It is time for the nation to reclaim its place—not merely as a territory, but as a principle, a voice, and a sovereign state with genuine regional agency. This role must not be one of ruin and reliance, but of principled, capable leadership—one that navigates contradictions with wisdom, and avoids becoming a pawn in others’ conflicts.
At this transformative juncture—and with the looming risk of becoming once more a theatre for proxy warfare—silence is no longer a tenable position. Syrians can no longer wait for a regional or international breakthrough. Action is required—urgently.
In light of Syria’s precarious security and economic conditions, and with the emotional polarisation over who bombed whom now behind them, Syrians must rally around a unified national vision. This vision must reject all foreign-aligned loyalties and reassert the long-eroded principle of sovereignty. Syria must be reclaimed—not only in geography, but as a cause, a voice, and a credible regional actor.
To emerge from this period of profound vulnerability—militarily, economically, and politically—Syrians must demand the right to shape their own destiny, within their own borders and in equal partnership with their neighbours. That future must be grounded in sovereign neutrality and shared regional interests.
The choice is clear and urgent. Syrians—across government, civil society, and the fragmented political landscape—must now decide: will they remain fuel for war, or become architects of peace, both nationally and regionally?
