Amid the unprecedented military escalation between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other, attention is increasingly turning to Syria, long one of the arenas most shaped by Iranian influence.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
Today, however, the picture looks markedly different from previous years of war. A new political system is seeking to redefine the country’s regional position, against the backdrop of a public mood deeply marked by the memory of Iran’s role in the Syrian conflict.
A recent statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic reflected this shift in official political discourse. In the statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Media Line, Damascus condemned the Iranian attacks targeting several Arab countries and affirmed its solidarity with them, rejecting any threat to their sovereignty and security.
Observers say the position marks a notable departure from the previous phase, when Syrian foreign policy was closely aligned with Tehran under the rule of Bashar Assad, and reflects a desire to move away from axis-based politics toward restoring Arab relations and broader regional engagement.
Syrian reactions today cannot be understood without reference to the background of Iran’s intervention in the country since the early years of the war. Tehran played a direct military and security role, supporting former government forces, sending advisers and fighters, and backing multiple armed groups.
Iranian intervention's effect on Syria
This intervention left a deep imprint on Syrian society, particularly among broad segments of the population who view Iran as a central actor in military operations that targeted cities, neighborhoods, and residential areas. That perception helped shape a negative public attitude toward Tehran, one that hardened over time as humanitarian losses mounted.
With the fall of the former regime, the Syrian arena witnessed a gradual withdrawal of Iranian-linked forces and groups as part of new political and security arrangements aimed at reducing external influence and rebuilding state institutions.
Many Syrians viewed this withdrawal as the beginning of a new phase, particularly amid growing talk of rebalancing foreign relations and moving away from the sharp alignments that characterized the previous period.
The sense of relief expressed by a broad spectrum of Syrians regarding the strikes against Iran was not surprising. Many believe that what is happening carries dimensions beyond direct military confrontation and is closely tied to the memory of war and painful personal experiences.
An Aleppo resident, Hussein Al-Saeed, told The Media Line that what is happening today “carries symbolic meaning for many Syrians, because they feel that a party that was part of their suffering is now facing major challenges. This gives them a sense that times are changing and that the region “may be entering a new phase.”
He added that this feeling is not about a desire for war itself, but rather about hope for a decline in the foreign interventions that burdened the country for many years.
In Damascus, journalist Shireen Al-Masri told The Media Line that the public mood is complex but tends toward the feeling that “what is happening today may ease the intensity of the conflicts that have affected Syria.”
She explained that many are not celebrating war, but they believe that a regional rebalancing could have a positive effect within Syria. She noted that this sentiment is also linked to a broad desire for stability and reconstruction, and away from the polarization that has hindered political or economic progress.
A 'broader struggle over influence'
In Idlib, activist Iyad Aref told The Media Line that popular reactions are directly linked to memories of siege and bombardment. Residents believe that “a decline in Iranian influence in the region may reduce the chances of repeating scenarios of military intervention in other countries.”
He added that many Syrians view the developments as part of a broader struggle over influence in the Middle East, not merely a confrontation between two states or two axes.
In southern Syria, a young man, Ayham Mahmoud, told The Media Line that his generation grew up amid war and foreign interventions, and therefore sees current developments as an opportunity to change old equations.
He stressed that “the joy is not about the war itself, but about the possibility of ending a phase in which Syrians were an open arena for conflict,” adding that many hope this will lead to reduced security and military pressures on the region.
In Qamishli, a woman working in the humanitarian field, who preferred to remain anonymous, indicated that the public mood also carries a humanitarian dimension. Some Syrians feel that “any retreat in the influence of forces that participated in the war may help turn the page on the past.”
However, she emphasized that the majority want stability above all else, and that people simultaneously fear the expansion of regional conflicts and their impact on the region as a whole.
Prominent Syrian activist Hadi Al-Abdullah voiced a far more visceral reaction, linking the reported death of Iran’s leadership to Syrians’ memories of wartime loss.
“The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been transferred, and his body is being pulled out from under the rubble. This reminds me of the days when we used to pull the bodies of our children from under the rubble—our children whom the Iranians killed, whom Ali Khamenei, the head of evil, the head of crime, the head of injustice, sent. He has been killed along with a group of Iranian officials. These criminals have deeply shed the blood of the Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Yemenis, and they have shed the blood of Arabs and Muslims. I am very happy about the killing of the criminals, and I cannot hide my joy.”
Despite this popular mood among certain segments, the new Syrian leadership is keen to adopt a cautious, balanced official discourse focused on the principles of sovereignty and noninterference, and to call for diplomatic solutions, reflecting an awareness of the sensitivity of the moment.
Damascus understands that direct involvement in polarizations could expose it to new pressures at a time when it is seeking to consolidate internal stability, rebuild the economy, and attract international support.
Analysts say the gap between official rhetoric and public sentiment is a natural feature of political transitions, as governments tend to pursue careful balances while societies express their emotions more openly. At the same time, the Syrian leadership is seeking to recast the country as a regional actor intent on avoiding escalation, a posture that could help it forge new partnerships and reintegrate into the regional order.
Ultimately, Syria appears to be entering a new phase, one in which regional developments are viewed not merely as a military confrontation between major powers, but as part of a broader reshaping of regional balances that have profoundly shaped the course of the Syrian war.
While public sentiment reflects a mix of relief and caution, the state continues to use diplomatic language to consolidate stability and open a new chapter in foreign relations. Many Syrians hope these shifts will signal the beginning of the end of a long period of interventions and conflict, for which the country has paid a heavy price.