AWC Foreign Affairs Desk
In a major escalation of America’s ongoing counter-ISIS campaign, the United States has launched large-scale retaliatory strikes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets in central Syria, following a deadly ambush near Palmyra that killed three U.S. personnel in December 2025.
The air and ground operations, backed by partner forces including Jordanian fighter jets, mark one of the most significant U.S. actions against ISIS in years.
The offensive — dubbed “Operation Hawkeye Strike” by U.S. military leaders — saw more than 70 ISIS infrastructure sites, weapons depots and operational bases hit by U.S. F-15 and A-10 jets, Apache helicopters and HIMARS rocket systems aimed at degrading the extremist group’s capabilities.
What Sparked the Strikes?
The strikes were in direct retaliation for an attack near Palmyra, Syria, on December 13, 2025, in which a suspected ISIS-affiliated attacker ambushed a joint Syrian-U.S. convoy, killing two U.S. Army soldiers and one civilian interpreter, and wounding others. U.S. officials described the operation as a decisive response to the assault.
U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth described the mission as a “declaration of vengeance” against those responsible, emphasising that the United States will aggressively defend its forces and partners against terrorism.
The strikes received public backing from Syrian authorities, who reiterated their commitment to eradicating ISIS and ensuring the group has no safe havens within Syrian territory.
Coalition Cooperation Against Extremism
The operation reflects evolving cooperation between the United States and regional partners, including the Syrian government in its post-Assad configuration, which has agreed to participate in coordinated actions against ISIS remnants.
This marks a nuanced shift in geopolitical alignments, with counter-terrorism as a unifying agenda despite broader diplomatic complexities in the region.
Can Nigeria Draw Parallels?
For Nigerians, the U.S. campaign prompts a critical comparison with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s announced intent to deploy specialised forces, including trained forest guards and state-level security enhancements, to decisively tackle insurgency, banditry and terror threats at home.
While the contexts differ — Syria’s ongoing civil conflict versus Nigeria’s complex internal security landscape — the core principle remains: sustained, multi-layered and coordinated operations are essential to dismantle entrenched extremist networks.
Nigeria’s security blueprint emphasises building local capacity, cooperative federal security architecture, and sustained pressure against terror cells in the Sahel, North-East and other hotspots — a strategy that mirrors, in Africanised form, the coalition-style operations seen in the U.S.-led fight against ISIS.
This includes intelligence cooperation, targeted offensives against terror hideouts, and community-based security initiatives. (Context drawn from Nigeria’s state policy declarations.)
Risk of Escalation and Strategic Implications
The U.S. strikes, while labelled retaliatory, carry broader implications:
- Potential for further retaliation by surviving extremist elements;
- Risk of civilian harm and regional instability if operations are not tightly calibrated;
- Diplomatic balancing acts with host nations and other regional actors.
In the Syrian context, the strikes did not signal the beginning of a new war, but rather were framed as a proportional response aimed at preventing future attacks on U.S. forces and allies.
Lessons for Nigeria
Experts argue that Nigeria’s response to terror threats must prioritise:
- Community intelligence networks that preempt attacks;
- Capacity building for local security agencies to reduce dependence on federal forces;
- Strategic partnerships with neighbouring countries to contain cross-border movement of terror cells — akin to U.S. and Syrian cooperation against ISIS remnants.
As Nigeria continues to shape its own counter-terrorism policies, the U.S. experience underscores that combining offensive action with diplomatic coordination and local empowerment frameworks can contribute to more sustainable security outcomes.
In a world where terror groups adapt rapidly, the synergy of military action, political will and collaborative alliances may determine whether nations can truly decimate extremist threats — whether in the deserts of Syria or the forests and plains of Nigeria.
