On December 19, 2025, US forces carried out strikes across Syria tied by US officials to Islamic State remnants in response to a December 13 attack that killed two American service members. The operation, named “Operation Hawkeye” in reference to the Iowa origins of the fallen soldiers, struck roughly 70 targets including infrastructure and weapons storage, officials said. US and partner forces, including Jordan, were involved, and Pentagon sources said intelligence from prior operations contributed to target selection. The action aims to degrade militant capacity and deter further attacks on US personnel in the region.
Key takeaways
- Roughly 70 targets in Syria were struck on December 19, 2025, in an operation US officials linked to ISIS-affiliated infrastructure and arms sites.
- The operation was named “Operation Hawkeye” after the two fallen soldiers who hailed from Iowa.
- The December 13 attack killed two US service members—Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown—and a civilian interpreter.
- US and partner forces had conducted 10 prior operations after Dec. 13 that the US says resulted in about 23 people killed or detained and yielded electronic intelligence used for targeting.
- Partner nations including Jordan participated in the strikes, according to US officials.
- Approximately 1,800 Iowa National Guard soldiers began deploying to the Middle East earlier in 2025 as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.
- US officials characterized the strikes as retaliation intended to reduce ISIS’s ability to threaten US forces, while some Syrian authorities offered differing accounts of the attacker’s affiliations.
Background
US forces have maintained a presence in Syria since the mid-2010s campaign against the Islamic State, when ISIS seized large swaths of Syria and Iraq. Coalition and partner operations, combined with local ground forces and shifts in control inside Syria, eliminated most of that territorial caliphate by the late 2010s, but small, mobile ISIS cells have persisted. The United States has kept several hundred troops in the region as part of a continuing counter-ISIS posture; many missions focus on strike-and-hold, partnership with local forces, and intelligence gathering.
The December 13 attack in Palmyra that killed two US soldiers renewed focus on the threat posed by armed groups operating inside Syria. US political and military leaders signaled a strong retaliatory response; President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States was carrying out “very serious retaliation,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the action in stark terms on X. At the same time, Syrian officials have disputed or offered alternate accounts of the attacker’s ties, complicating a straight-line narrative tying the assault to ISIS.
Main event
US military officials told reporters that the strikes on December 19 targeted dozens of facilities across Syria that were assessed to support ISIS networks, including storage sites and command-and-control infrastructure. The operation relied in part on information obtained during a series of earlier missions after the Dec. 13 incident; those missions reportedly produced electronic materials that contributed to target development. Officials described the action as focused on degrading militant logistics rather than initiating a broader campaign of occupation or regime change.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the strikes as a forceful response, using language underscoring retribution and deterrence. President Trump’s public posts similarly cast the operation as a necessary measure to defend US forces and punish those responsible for the fatal attack. Pentagon spokespeople emphasized coordination with partner nations and said allied contributions helped expand reach against dispersed ISIS elements.
US officials said Jordan was among the partners that participated in the strikes, and described the operation’s chief aim as diminishing militant capacity to threaten US personnel. The strikes were limited in stated scope to facilities tied to battlefield support and weapons storage; the Pentagon did not announce independent confirmation of militant casualties beyond earlier post-attack operations. Syrian authorities meanwhile offered divergent descriptions of the Dec. 13 shooter, and ISIS had not claimed responsibility as of the strike.
Analysis & implications
Operationally, striking roughly 70 targets in a single action signals an intent to impose immediate costs on militant networks and to disrupt logistics and safe havens. If the strikes successfully destroyed weapons caches and command nodes, they could blunt short-term attack planning and reduce the frequency of small-scale ambushes against coalition troops. However, militants have shown resilience through dispersal and clandestine tactics, meaning tactical blows do not guarantee long-term defeat.
Politically, the strikes underscore the continuing complexities of US operations inside Syria. Washington must balance the imperative to protect US forces with risks of escalation and the diplomatic consequences of striking inside sovereign territory where multiple state and non-state actors—Russia, Iran, the Syrian government, local militias—remain active. Public messaging framing the strikes as defensive retaliation aims to limit domestic and international backlash but may complicate relations with actors who view US military actions as violations of sovereignty.
Strategically, the action could sharpen pressure on ISIS remnants, depriving them of stores and staging areas and disrupting recruitment messaging—if the strikes are followed by sustained intelligence and follow-on operations. Conversely, if civilian harm or disputed attribution emerges, the strikes could provide propaganda fodder for extremist recruitment. The role of partner participation, including Jordan, is likely to be emphasized by US officials to demonstrate coalition legitimacy.
Comparison & data
| Event | Date | Reported scope | Reported result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attack that killed two US soldiers | Dec 13, 2025 | Palmyra, Syria — small-unit engagement | 2 US soldiers and 1 civilian interpreter killed; 3 wounded |
| Post-attack operations | Dec 13–19, 2025 | 10 operations | ~23 people killed or detained; electronic intel recovered |
| Operation Hawkeye strikes | Dec 19, 2025 | ~70 targets across Syria | Targets struck; US officials report degradation of ISIS-linked sites |
The table summarizes the immediate sequence: a Dec. 13 attack, follow-on tactical operations, and the Dec. 19 strikes that officials say targeted infrastructure and weapons storage. While the US reports specific counts for operations and targets, independent verification of militant casualties and precise damage assessments may lag official statements.
Reactions & quotes
“I am hereby announcing that the United States is inflicting very serious retaliation, just as I promised, on the murderous terrorists responsible.”
President Donald J. Trump (Truth Social)
President Trump framed the strikes as a direct response to the killing of US personnel and described Syrian leadership as supportive in his post, a claim not independently corroborated in US or Syrian public releases.
“This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (X)
Defense Secretary Hegseth emphasized deterrence and a commitment to defend US forces; Pentagon officials sought to portray the strikes as measured and targeted rather than an escalation to large-scale combat operations.
“Our priority right now is supporting the families of our fallen and wounded soldiers.”
Maj. Gen. Stephen Osborne, Iowa National Guard (statement)
The Iowa National Guard and state officials have focused public statements on family support and the local impact of the loss, with about 1,800 Iowa Guard members reported deployed earlier in the year as part of the broader mission.
Unconfirmed
- Syria’s claim that the Dec. 13 attacker was part of the country’s Internal Security service has not been independently verified by US officials.
- ISIS had not publicly claimed responsibility for the Dec. 13 attack as of initial US statements linking the strikes to ISIS-affiliated networks.
- The exact number of militant casualties or material losses from the Dec. 19 strikes has not been independently confirmed beyond US official accounts.
- President Trump’s assertion that the Syrian government is “fully in support” of the operation has not been corroborated by independent Syrian government statements made public at the time of reporting.
Bottom line
The December 19 strikes mark a clear, immediate US response to the Dec. 13 attack that killed two service members, using a concentrated set of strikes aimed at degrading ISIS-linked infrastructure across Syria. In tactical terms, destroying storage and support facilities can disrupt militant operations in the near term, but historic patterns show that remnants can reconstitute absent sustained intelligence-driven follow-up and effective local governance.
Politically and diplomatically, the action highlights the persistent tensions of conducting counter‑ISIS operations inside Syria’s complex battlefield. Observers should watch for independent damage assessments, statements from additional partners, any confirmation of militant leadership losses, and whether the strikes are followed by sustained operations or increased diplomatic engagement to manage escalation risks.
Sources
- CNN (US news media) — primary reporting on the strikes, officials’ statements, and troop details.