In recent weeks, United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of Syrian intervention to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. Washington clearly wants to keep this option at its disposal as yet another pressure point against Iran.

But Damascus has stronger reasons to reject military intervention than those that might push towards it. Sending its forces across the border could strengthen Hezbollah politically, destabilise both countries and expose Syria to Iranian retaliation that could reach its capital.

So far, there is no declared and comprehensive American vision of what is expected of Damascus. Intervention, at its most limited, could mean tightening control over the border, curbing the smuggling of weapons and fighters, and sharing intelligence with the Lebanese army. The more dangerous scenario would involve Syrian forces entering to take part in disarming Hezbollah or taking control of its areas in southern Lebanon.

Trump’s repeated mention of the idea appears closer to an exercise in political pressure than to the unveiling of an imminent military operation. Raising the prospect of a Syrian role confuses Hezbollah’s and Iran’s calculations, demonstrates the multiplicity of American options, and increases pressure on the Lebanese government to prove its ability to place all weapons under state control.

But what may look like a low-cost option for the US or Israel is entirely different for Syria, which would bear the cost of human losses and security repercussions, in addition to the risk of returning to regional conflict at a time when its new leadership is betting on stability, economic recovery and attracting investment.

Syria possesses some capacity to act. It has a long border with Lebanon, which means its forces can easily cross into Lebanese territory. In addition, factions that are now part of the new........

© Al Jazeera