On Sunday, a deadly suicide bombing struck the Mar Elias Church in the Dweila neighbourhood of Damascus, killing 25 worshippers and injuring dozens more. The attack, carried out by an armed man who opened fire on congregants before detonating an explosive belt, is being treated as a major security test for Syria’s transitional government.
Authorities swiftly blamed ISIS for the attack, claiming the group had previously attempted similar bombings targeting Christian and Shiite sites. Within 24 hours, Syrian security forces launched operations in Harasta and Kafr Batna, arresting key suspects and seizing explosives and weapons. The Interior Minister confirmed that the man behind the bombing was part of an ISIS cell active in Damascus.
However, questions have emerged about whether the attack could have been prevented. Investigative journalist Ibrahim Al-Jabin revealed that a 27-page intelligence report was submitted to Syrian authorities back in March by a European-based Syrian data analyst. The report warned of a possible ISIS attack in June, even identifying places of worship in Damascus as likely targets and suggesting a possible assassination attempt on President Ahmad al-Sharaa. Allegedly, the report’s warnings were ignored.
The bombing also comes amid mounting international concern over the safety of President Sharaa. Western diplomats and intelligence sources have confirmed at least two failed assassination attempts against him since he took office in December 2024. U.S. envoy Tom Barak recently warned that jihadist factions may target the president due to his efforts to integrate minorities and open Syria to the West.
Experts interpret the church attack as both a symbolic and strategic blow. Researcher Firas Fahham argued that the attackers likely chose a church on a Sunday to maximise media impact and potentially sow intercommunal discord. He noted that the government’s immediate attribution to ISIS could either reflect accurate intelligence or an effort to rally international support.
Policy analyst Dr. Samir al-Abdullah believes the bombing marks the beginning of a new phase of destabilisation in Syria, with both internal and external actors aiming to undermine the government and deter investment. If ISIS was responsible, the attack may be a response to Sharaa’s moderate policies; if another actor is involved, such as Iran, it could signal a warning of their continued influence in Syria.
Dr. Abdulrahman al-Haj outlined four messages conveyed by the bombing:
- To Western allies—especially Trump’s administration—that Syria under Sharaa is unsafe for Christians.
- To Sharaa himself, that his enemies are still capable of striking at the heart of Damascus.
- To the Syrian people, that the state cannot provide security.
- To Syria’s Christians, that their alignment with the state offers no protection.
Three parties stand to benefit, al-Haj argues: the SDF (which wants to remain autonomous), anti-centralisation actors in coastal and Druze areas, and ISIS itself, which views Sharaa as its principal adversary.
Though the official line pins blame on ISIS, commentators caution against premature conclusions before final investigative findings are made public. The bombing is already reshaping Syria’s security landscape, potentially heralding a prolonged period of instability—and testing the transitional government’s capacity to govern.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
