By Michael Phillips | Republic Dispatch

The latest wave of U.S. airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria underscores a familiar paradox in modern counterterrorism: the Islamic State has been defeated territorially, yet the conditions that allow it to persist remain largely intact.

Following a deadly ISIS attack near Palmyra in December 2025 that killed two American service members and a U.S. civilian interpreter, U.S. and allied forces launched Operation Hawkeye Strike, a sustained campaign targeting ISIS leadership, logistics nodes, and infrastructure across central and eastern Syria. U.S. officials describe the operation as necessary to prevent the group from regrouping and threatening coalition forces.

The strikes have drawn public support from some American political figures, including congressional candidates emphasizing a hardline counterterrorism posture. But beyond domestic politics, the renewed campaign highlights deeper unresolved questions about U.S. strategy in Syria — and whether containment without resolution is a viable long-term approach.

ISIS After the Caliphate

ISIS no longer controls territory in Syria or Iraq, but it has evolved into a decentralized insurgency, exploiting lawless zones, fractured governance, and regional power vacuums. Cells operate across the Syrian desert and along porous borders, sustaining themselves through extortion, smuggling, and sporadic attacks.

This persistence reflects a broader reality: military defeat alone does not dismantle extremist movements rooted in instability. While U.S. Central Command continues to report tactical successes, the strategic environment remains largely unchanged.

A Narrow Mission in a Complex Theater

The United States maintains approximately 900 troops in Syria, primarily working alongside Kurdish-led partner forces. The mission — preventing an ISIS resurgence and protecting U.S. personnel — is deliberately narrow. Successive administrations have avoided broader objectives such as regime change or large-scale stabilization efforts.

That restraint limits escalation but also constrains outcomes. U.S. forces operate in an environment shaped by competing actors: the Assad regime, Iranian-backed militias, Russian forces, Turkish operations, and fragmented local authorities. Each strike addresses an immediate threat while leaving the underlying geopolitical disorder unresolved.

Deterrence Without Endgames

Operation Hawkeye Strike reinforces a familiar deterrence message: attacks on U.S. forces will be met with overwhelming force. Militarily, the approach is sound. Strategically, it raises questions about sustainability.

Without a clear political settlement in Syria or a regional framework for long-term stabilization, counter-ISIS operations risk becoming perpetual — tactically successful but strategically static. This cycle has defined U.S. engagement in Syria for nearly a decade.

The Global Context

The renewed focus on ISIS comes amid wider global instability, from the Red Sea to Eastern Europe. For U.S. policymakers, Syria remains a secondary theater — important enough to defend, but not central enough to resolve. That tension shapes every decision, from troop levels to strike authorizations.

For international observers, the lesson is sobering: even diminished extremist groups can endure when conflicts remain frozen rather than settled. Syria, fragmented and contested, continues to provide the conditions that allow insurgencies to survive.

What Comes Next

The current strikes may degrade ISIS capabilities in the near term, but they do not answer the fundamental question of what “success” looks like in Syria. Is it indefinite containment? Eventual withdrawal? Or a diplomatic settlement that has so far proven elusive?

Until that question is resolved, operations like Hawkeye Strike will likely continue — effective in the moment, but emblematic of a broader strategic stalemate that extends far beyond any single attack or response.