The extensive U.S. strikes on the deserts of Deir Ezzor and Raqqa occurred while Washington is simultaneously facing deadlocks on multiple fronts: the failure of its plan to end the war in Ukraine, the inability to destabilize Venezuela, and global public attention focused on the crimes of the Israeli regime in Gaza. In this context, reopening the ISIS dossier and declaring “revenge” by former President Trump and the U.S. Secretary of Defense is, more than a security response, a psychological-media operation aimed at reshaping the global agenda. Field evidence also indicates that these attacks were not launched from a position of strength but rather as an effort to cover up the decline of U.S. deterrence and the erosion of Trump’s earlier claims about the complete destruction of ISIS.
Collapse of Trump’s Claim on Destroying ISIS
Trump had presented the destruction of ISIS as one of his most important achievements, using it as a tool to attack Democrats and justify the withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, the attacks on U.S. forces in Syria, the release of new ISIS messages in Idlib, and reports of the establishment of checkpoints have effectively shattered that claim. At the same time, domestic economic, social, and security crises have intensified public pressure on Trump. In such circumstances, the strike on Syria is above all an attempt to restore the U.S. president’s tarnished image and reduce internal pressure through media-driven “superhero” narratives.
A Self-Serving Interpretation of the Right to Self-Defense
U.S. officials’ emphasis on “revenge” exposes Washington’s selective and self-serving interpretation of the principle of legitimate self-defense. The United States reserves for itself the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world, while simultaneously denying the legitimate right of nations to defend themselves against occupation and aggression. Pressure to disarm Gaza’s resistance, hostile actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon, granting Israel complete freedom of action in Syria, pressuring Iraq to weaken popular resistance forces, and direct threats to Iran’s defensive capabilities all form components of a single pattern—one that defines Israel’s security not as a defensive issue but as a project of regional dominance.
Sanitizing Terrorism and Shifting Occupation Priorities
One of the most dangerous aspects of the recent attacks is the indirect effort to legitimize the role of Jabhat al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. The U.S., which previously proudly supported regime change in Damascus and even suspended the Caesar sanctions, is now emphasizing the role of the new government in combating ISIS as a way to cover up a year’s worth of widespread crimes by these groups. Simultaneously, by focusing on “terrorism,” the core issue in Syria—Israeli occupation—is sidelined. This shift in priorities not only legitimizes the fragmentation of Syria but also sends a warning message to Turkey, the Kurds, and other regional actors about U.S. red lines.
This pattern is also repeated in Latin America, where Washington, under pretexts such as drugs, illegal migration, and now terrorism, seeks to justify military interventions and increased pressure on Venezuela—a project that has so far failed to break the country’s national cohesion but continues to be pursued as an active scenario.
NOURNEWS