Assessments vary over the nature of the wide-scale US military operation currently under way in central and eastern Syria. Some see it as part of a long-term strategy aimed at eliminating ISIS, while others view it as a calibrated retaliatory response with clear limits. While specialists argue that international law does not allow an open-ended campaign of total eradication, military analysts point out that the coalition possesses operational tools that enable prolonged action. At the same time, researchers in international affairs believe the US objective is focused on weakening ISIS and preventing its expansion, rather than achieving its complete destruction.
This divergence raises a central question – do current operations in the Syrian Badia mark the beginning of a decisive campaign against ISIS, or are they merely a carefully managed approach to controlling the threat?
The Palmyra Attack: Trigger for Escalation and Limits of Response
The US military escalation followed an attack on a joint convoy of US forces and allied Syrian forces near the city of Palmyra on 13 December, which killed two US soldiers and a civilian interpreter and injured three others. The attack was attributed to ISIS-linked cells operating in the Syrian Badia.
Dr Alaa Al-Nashou’, a strategic military analyst, told +963 that the attack accelerated operations that were already part of a continuing US strategy in place since 2014. He said Washington relies on long-term intelligence monitoring of ISIS movements in the Badia and its surrounding areas, and that recent strikes fall within a framework aimed at reducing capabilities and preventing attacks that threaten stability or US bases.
By contrast, Moatasem Al-Kailani, a specialist in international law and human rights, told +963 that such attacks “legally allow only a temporary defensive response, based on Article 51 of the UN Charter”. He stressed that responding to an armed attack is fundamentally different from seeking the complete elimination of an armed group inside a sovereign state.
Issam Khoury, senior researcher at the Czech-Slovak Centre for Oriental Studies, told +963 that Washington’s intention was “to send an initial retaliatory message after the killing of its soldiers, rather than to announce a decisive final battle”. He noted that the timing and method of the operation “reflect a desire to reinforce deterrence, not to expand the confrontation”.
Eradication or Systematic Weakening?
US Central Command announced the launch of a wide operation targeting ISIS infrastructure, striking dozens of sites across the Syrian Badia using fighter jets, attack helicopters and precision munitions. The geographic scope extended from eastern Raqqa countryside to western Deir Ezzor and eastern Homs.
Al-Nashou’ said this operational pattern reflects a military approach focused on targeting leadership figures and operational centres of gravity, rather than engaging in open ground battles. He argued that paralysing command and supply hubs is sufficient to prevent ISIS from rebuilding its capabilities, even without direct territorial control.
Al-Kailani, however, warned against confusing the weakening of an armed group with its complete eradication. He explained that “eradication requires long-term security control and comprehensive pursuit of organisational and ideological structures”, which in turn demands a stronger international legal basis, such as an explicit UN Security Council mandate or official consent from the Syrian government – neither of which currently exists.
Khoury, for his part, said the US strategy “is not aimed at dismantling ISIS as an ideological organisation, but at preventing it from controlling insecure areas or economic resources that could give it financial independence”. He added that Washington recognises the difficulty of defeating a group rooted in religious ideology without an effective moderate Islamic partnership on the ground.
Power Signals and Limits of Impact
The strikes covered wide areas of the Syrian desert and targeted weapons depots, command centres and logistical sites, with estimates indicating the killing of a limited number of ISIS fighters, including a drone-cell commander.
Al-Nashou’ said the focus on desert geography reflects an understanding of ISIS’s operating environment, which relies on open spaces and security vacuums. He noted that “precise strikes in these areas restrict the group’s mobility and prevent it from becoming a cross-border threat”.
Al-Kailani countered that these losses, however militarily significant, “do not alter the legal nature of the operations, which remain governed by the logic of defensive response and do not rise to the level of a legally sanctioned eradication campaign”.
Khoury linked the limited scale of casualties to the political messaging of the operation, arguing that “the goal is to reinforce a regional deterrence equation, not to open a new war of attrition”, especially given Washington’s calculations regarding allies and balances with regional and international powers.
Expansion or Controlled Conflict?
Reports have indicated the participation of the Jordanian air force in night strikes, alongside information about joint operations with Syrian forces following the Palmyra attack.
Al-Nashou’ said this coordination demonstrates the coalition’s ability to build a regional operational network capable of supporting long-term operations, stressing that intelligence and military cooperation with neighbouring states is a key strength in confronting ISIS.
Al-Kailani, however, emphasised that “any undeclared or legally undocumented coordination does not grant full legitimacy to military action”, adding that “the absence of an official announcement by the Syrian government keeps these operations in a legal grey zone”.
Khoury interpreted Jordan’s participation as a political signal that “moderate Arab and Islamic forces will be partners in shaping a future security framework for Syria free of extremist jihadist ideology”. He argued that this approach serves Washington’s strategy of supporting moderation, rather than imposing comprehensive military victory.
Managing the Threat or Eliminating It?
The views of the three experts converge on one central point – what is happening in the Syrian Badia does not yet amount to a full eradication campaign against ISIS. Between the legal constraints governing military action, an operational approach that prioritises weakening over control, and political and regional calculations that limit escalation, the coalition’s strategy appears closer to managing the threat and preventing its expansion than to eliminating it entirely.
Accordingly, the question remains open – do these operations signal preparation for a broader strategic shift, or are they another chapter in a long-term containment policy? Based on current evidence, the answer leans towards the latter.
