Policy Assessment: Regional Affairs Unit, Progress Center for Policies – Damascus
Introduction:
On July 7, 2026, two consecutive explosions shook the Syrian capital Damascus, not far from the “Four Seasons” hotel where French President Emmanuel Macron is staying, coming just five days after another explosion targeted a café in the Hijaz district near the Palace of Justice. Although these events did not disrupt the visit’s agenda, their timing and spatial precision raise fundamental questions about their sources and objectives, especially as they coincide with the visit of the first Western leader to Syria in years, and with major transformations in the “new Syria” and its upcoming participation in the NATO summit in Ankara. In this context, this paper seeks to examine the possible dimensions of the explosions and unpack their local, regional, and international messages.
The Facts:
First incident (July 2, 2026): A crude improvised explosive device detonated inside a café on Nasr Street in the Hijaz district near the Palace of Justice in central Damascus, killing 10 and wounding 21. The Syrian Ministry of Interior described it as a terrorist act and pledged to identify the perpetrators; no group claimed responsibility.
Second incident (July 7, 2026): Two consecutive explosions in central Damascus coincided with Macron’s visit. They caused at least 18 injuries, including 4 security personnel, and occurred outside the security zone designated for the French president’s stay. A Syrian security source confirmed the devices were crude, one planted inside a vehicle and the other in a garbage container near the Four Seasons hotel (Macron’s residence) and close to the Ministry of Tourism. No group claimed responsibility.
French position: The Élysée announced that Macron did not hear the explosions and was safe, and the visit continued as planned. The French side described the visit as “historic,” aimed at strengthening the partnership, building a free and pluralistic Syria, and focusing on reconstruction and investment, while affirming commitment to Syria’s stability and counter-terrorism.
Syrian position: The Syrian government condemned both explosions, describing them as terrorist acts targeting the stability of the new Syria, with the Interior Ministry pledging to hold those involved accountable.
Additional context: The explosions coincided with the formation of the new parliament and transitional justice processes, and with Syria’s preparation to participate in the NATO summit in Ankara (July 7–8). Syria is undergoing major transformations, including economic connectivity projects with Iraq and new trade and energy mapping.
Analysis:
First: The General Context – Syria as an Arena of International Competition
Following the fall of the Assad regime, Syria became an arena of intersecting complex international and regional interests, with multiple sponsors (Washington, Ankara, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Arab capitals) competing for influence. In this context, Macron’s visit—the first by a Western leader—carries political and economic messages that may have unsettled parties who view French influence as a threat to their interests, especially as Paris tries to compensate for its absence from the Lebanese file (after suspending its work in the “Quintet” and the emergence of the Aoun-Israel initiative with US backing) by using Syria as an alternative channel.
Second: Motives Behind the Explosions and Reading Their Timing
The timing of the two explosions was not coincidental. The July 2 explosion near the Palace of Justice (a symbol of transitional justice) coincided with the formation of parliament and the start of trial processes, suggesting an intent to disrupt the reconciliation and trial process and demonstrate the new state’s failure to secure the capital.
The July 7 explosion, timed with Macron’s presence in Damascus and its proximity to his hotel, just hours before the NATO summit, carries dimensions beyond the local context, making it a message-delivery tool par excellence.
Third: Possible Sources of the Explosions
First hypothesis (local terrorist groups – ISIS/Assad remnants): Targeting civilian locations with crude devices fits ISIS’s pattern, and Assad remnants could benefit from destabilization to derail reconciliation. However, the timing and precision of the second explosion (near Macron’s hotel) require intelligence capabilities and coordination beyond local groups’ capacity, and the absence of any claim of responsibility makes this hypothesis inconclusive.
Second hypothesis (an Israeli message against Macron and France): Israel emerges as the leading candidate, for several reasons: the personal animosity between Netanyahu and Macron over the latter’s positions supporting a two-state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state; Israel’s insistence on keeping France out of the Syrian and Lebanese files, which it considers its vital sphere; and its desire to send Macron a message that French influence is not welcome in this region. However, targeting civilians is not a typical Israeli pattern, as Israel usually leaves clear fingerprints (airstrikes) rather than ambiguous operations.
Third hypothesis (internal actors/opposition factions): The explosions could stem from factions dissatisfied with the course of transformations or the distribution of power, but targeting areas under the new state’s control harms these factions’ own interests, and the absence of any claim weakens this hypothesis.
Fourth hypothesis (a multi-target message): The explosions may be a message directed at all actors on the eve of the NATO summit, showing that Syria’s stability is fragile, that any new regional arrangements could face security obstacles, and that there are parties capable of striking Damascus’s security whenever they wish. In this scenario, local groups may simply be a cover for external agendas whose sponsors do not want their identity revealed.
Fourth: Reading the French Response
Paris handled the incident by continuing the visit unchanged, suggesting an awareness of the nature—and perhaps the source—of the message, a determination not to grant the event greater significance than it deserves, and a display of strength and refusal to be intimidated.
Conclusions:
The explosions are not isolated incidents but tools in a broader conflict driven by Syria’s growing importance and the clash of external and internal interests amid Syria’s new roles.
The second explosion carries a message to Macron before it does to al-Sharaa, regarding Paris’s attempt to compete with other capitals for influence in Syria, particularly in the context of France’s exclusion from the Lebanese file.
Israel stands out as a prime candidate behind the second explosion, given its animosity toward Macron, its rejection of French involvement in a file it considers its vital sphere, and its deep dispute with Paris over its positions supporting a two-state solution.
The use of local tools (such as Assad remnants and ISIS) does not negate the international character of the messages, as these groups may merely be a cover for external agendas whose sponsors do not want their identity exposed.
The likelihood of further explosions in Damascus remains real, given the many enemies of Syria’s transformations both domestically and internationally, and the ongoing struggle to define Syria’s role in relations with Iraq and Lebanon and the future of trade and energy mapping.
France’s handling of the situation—continuing the visit unchanged—suggests Paris’s awareness of the nature of the message and perhaps its source, and a desire not to grant the event dimensions that would serve those who sent it.
Local factors (Assad remnants, ISIS, aggrieved factions) cannot be ruled out either, making the picture complex through the intertwining of local tools with international messages, and complicating the separation between the event’s internal and external dimensions.
The explosions may be directed at all actors inside and outside Syria on the eve of the NATO summit, as a warning message that Syria’s stability remains fragile and that any new regional arrangements may face security obstacles.
In conclusion, the Damascus explosions remain an indicator that the road to stability in the new Syria will not be easy, and that it will face complex security challenges amid escalating regional and international competition for influence, where local tools intertwine with international messages in a scene that is difficult to fully unravel.
