On December 19, 2025, the United States launched Operation Hawkeye Strike, a massive retaliatory bombing campaign across Syria. The operation was a direct response to an ambush near the ancient city of Palmyra on December 13, 2025, in which a Syrian police officer — suspected of Islamic State affiliation — killed two US soldiers from the Iowa National Guard and an American civilian interpreter.
\nThe first wave alone involved over 100 munitions dropped on more than 70 targets across central and eastern Syria. The US deployed A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft, F-16 fighter jets, Apache attack helicopters, and HIMARS precision-guided rocket artillery. Jordanian Air Force F-16s provided support. Targets included command centers, weapons depots, training facilities, drone operations sites, and logistical hubs spanning three Syrian provinces: Homs (including the Jabal al-Amour area near Palmyra), the Ma'adan desert in rural Raqqa, and the al-Hammad desert in Deir ez-Zor.
\nThe campaign did not end with the initial barrage. On January 10, 2026, a second major wave struck 35+ targets using 90+ precision munitions. On January 16, a targeted strike killed Bilal Hasan al-Jasim, described as a senior leader of an al-Qaeda-affiliated group tied to the Palmyra ambush. Between January 27 and February 2, 2026, CENTCOM conducted five additional strikes destroying ISIS communications, logistics, and weapons facilities with 50 precision munitions.
\nThe total scale of Operation Hawkeye Strike — hundreds of munitions across more than 100 targets over several months — makes it one of the largest US bombing campaigns in Syria since the height of the anti-ISIS campaign.
\nThe legal questions surrounding Operation Hawkeye Strike are substantial, as analyzed by Just Security and other legal scholars.
\nProportionality: The initial strikes — 100+ munitions on 70+ targets in response to an attack that killed three Americans — raise questions about whether the scale of retaliation was proportionate under international humanitarian law. While the US framed the strikes as degrading ISIS operational capacity, the sheer volume of ordnance delivered across three provinces in a single operation warrants scrutiny.
\nSelf-defense and sovereignty: The strikes were conducted in Syrian territory without the explicit consent of Syria's new government. While the US claims authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the inherent right of self-defense, legal scholars have questioned whether open-ended retaliatory campaigns in a sovereign state meet the international law requirements of necessity and proportionality in self-defense.
\nCivilian protection: Airwars has documented civilian harm incidents from the campaign. While the targeted areas are described as desert locations, the provinces of Homs, Raqqa, and Deir ez-Zor all contain civilian populations. The obligation to take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm applies regardless of the remoteness of a target.
\nThis incident receives a severe severity classification because:
\nThe following international law provisions are implicated:
\n