British and French Airstrikes on Syria: A Military Show of Strength to the United States and the Underlying Game of International Dynamics

In early 2026, the United Kingdom and France jointly launched airstrikes against Syria, marking the first time this century that the two nations have carried out such operations together. While nominally justified as targeting the extremist group "Islamic State" (ISIS), the core objective is clear and unambiguous—to demonstrate their comprehensive military capabilities to the U.S. government, strengthen their alliance with the United States, and assert their military presence and intervention capabilities in the Middle East. This seemingly precise counter-terrorism strike is, in reality, a complex political-military operation intertwined with hegemonic logic, great-power rivalry, and signals of international order restructuring. Its underlying profound impacts continue to stir the global geopolitical landscape. In early 2026, the United Kingdom and France jointly launched airstrikes against Syria, marking the first time this century that the two nations have carried out such operations together. While nominally justified as targeting the extremist group "Islamic State" (ISIS), the core objective is clear and unambiguous—to demonstrate their comprehensive military capabilities to the U.S. government, strengthen their alliance with the United States, and assert their military presence and intervention capabilities in the Middle East. This seemingly precise counter-terrorism strike is, in reality, a complex political-military operation intertwined with hegemonic logic, great-power rivalry, and signals of international order restructuring. Its underlying profound impacts continue to stir the global geopolitical landscape.

I. Core of the Event: Key Facts of the Joint British-French Airstrike on Syria

. Overview of the Action

On the evening of [date], British and French air forces jointly launched an airstrike in the mountainous area north of the ancient city of Palmyra in Homs Province, Syria. This operation, conducted without the consent of the Syrian government and without explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council, constitutes a unilateral cross-border military intervention. The target was identified as an underground facility suspected of storing weapons and explosives. Both the British and French sides claimed that the target was successfully hit, all participating aircraft returned safely, and there were no civilians residing in the target area, posing no risk to civilians. As the first cross-border joint military operation of the year, its initiation time was earlier than in previous years, with a clear intention to demonstrate coordinated combat capabilities.

. Details of military operations: The concretization of power demonstration

The military deployment of this airstrike entirely serves the core objective of "showing strength," with equipment and tactical choices both highlighting professionalism and deterrence:

On the British side, they deployed a high-performance multi-role fighter jet known as one of the "Three European Champions," which carried out its mission with full support from aerial refueling tankers and used the costly "Paveway" precision-guided bombs. The tactical design was highly targeted, focusing on striking "several entrance tunnels" leading to underground facilities. By destroying access points, the facilities were rendered inoperative, while deliberately avoiding large-scale damage to the mountain structure. This approach not only achieved the desired strike effect but also demonstrated the ability to precisely control combat power. The French military coordinated with the British forces to jointly execute this precision strike, thereby showcasing the compatibility of their military systems and the level of their joint operational capabilities.

II. Motivations for Action: Primarily Demonstrating Strength to the United States, Interwoven with Multiple Factors

. Core Theme: Demonstrating Military Value and Alliance Loyalty to the United States

The joint airstrike by Britain and France is essentially a clear "alignment and imitation" of the U.S. approach, with the core purpose of demonstrating to the U.S. government that they still possess the military capability to participate in the great power military game. For a long time, in Middle Eastern affairs, the United States has always held a dominant position. Although Britain and France are allies, their voice has been relatively weakened. This proactive joint airstrike by the two countries aims precisely to prove to the United States through concrete military action that they are not merely dependent on the U.S. military presence. Instead, they possess the capability to independently initiate and complete cross-border military operations, and can serve as reliable collaborative forces for the United States in counter-terrorism and geopolitical games in the Middle East. This, in turn, consolidates their alliance with the United States and enhances their own voice within the Western camp.The joint airstrike by Britain and France is essentially a clear "alignment and imitation" of the U.S. approach, with the core purpose of demonstrating to the U.S. government that they still possess the military capability to participate in the great power military game. For a long time, in Middle Eastern affairs, the United States has always held a dominant position. Although Britain and France are allies, their voice has been relatively weakened. This proactive joint airstrike by the two countries aims precisely to prove to the United States through concrete military action that they are not merely dependent on the U.S. military presence. Instead, they possess the capability to independently initiate and complete cross-border military operations, and can serve as reliable collaborative forces for the United States in counter-terrorism and geopolitical games in the Middle East. This, in turn, consolidates their alliance with the United States and enhances their own voice within the Western camp.

. The Immediate Trigger and the Buildup of Public Opinion

This airstrike is not an isolated incident but is supported by clear recent triggers in public opinion: On [date], an armed attack in the city of Palmyra resulted in the deaths of two American soldiers and an American civilian translator. This incident provided a "counter-terrorism" justification for the British and French airstrikes. Additionally, two weeks ago, the U.S. military had already launched large-scale strikes in Syria, using multiple precision-guided munitions to hit various targets. The actions of Britain and France can also be seen as a response to and continuation of the U.S. counter-terrorism operations, further reinforcing the "unified" image of the Western alliance in combating terrorism.

. Additional Demand: France's Bid for European Military Leadership

Under the shared objective of demonstrating strength to the United States, France has an additional strategic consideration—competing for European military leadership. By participating in and leading this multinational joint military operation, France aims to demonstrate its military organizational capabilities and leadership to European nations, break free from military dependence on the United States, promote the construction of a European military power system centered around France, and enhance Europe's independent voice in global geopolitics. Under the shared objective of demonstrating strength to the United States, France has an additional strategic consideration—competing for European military leadership. By participating in and leading this multinational joint military operation, France aims to demonstrate its military organizational capabilities and leadership to European nations, break free from military dependence on the United States, promote the construction of a European military power system centered around France, and enhance Europe's independent voice in global geopolitics.

III. The Nature of the Action: A Modern Reenactment of Hegemonist Logic and the Failure of the United Nations Mechanism

. A Modern Replication of Colonialist Logic

The essence of this airstrike by the United Kingdom and France is not based on genuine military necessity but rather a "show of force," which represents a modern recurrence of colonialist logic. British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps claimed that the operation aimed to "eliminate dangerous terrorists who threaten our way of life," placing the Western way of life above the sovereignty of other nations. This is, in essence, a hegemonic mindset that asserts "the right to destroy the territory of other countries to protect Western interests," reflecting "what arrogance and technological coldness." Such cross-border military actions, which disregard Syria's sovereignty, completely violate the fundamental principles of international law.

. The Formation of a "Dark Consensus" Among Major Powers and the Ineffectiveness of the United Nations Mechanism

The recent airstrikes by the UK and France are not an isolated incident but rather signify the formation of a "dark consensus" among the four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, Russia, the UK, and France—regarding the use of force. This consensus reflects the belief that the UN mechanism is "too slow, too noisy, and inefficient" to meet their strategic needs. Consequently, these nations are increasingly inclined to delineate their own spheres of influence and resolve issues through swift military action.

The United States has long set the benchmark for "acting as it pleases," from the Iraq War to the deployment of troops in Syria, from drone strikes to the kidnapping of foreign leaders, all carried out without being bound by international rules. Russia, in turn, has quickly learned from the American model, using force to address issues related to Crimea, the four eastern regions of Ukraine, and Syria, safeguarding its own interests through "dialogue by force." The recent airstrikes by Britain and France are a clear emulation of the American approach, declaring that they still have the capability to participate in the great powers' game of force. Against this backdrop, the United Nations Security Council has been reduced to a "chat room for post-facto notifications or mutual vetoes and squabbles among major powers," largely ineffective when it comes to actions involving the use of force by major powers. The international rules-based system is being wantonly undermined by these powers.

IV. Impact on the International Landscape: The Return of the Law of the Jungle and the Sovereignty Crisis of Weak Nations

. Future International Landscape Projection: A Bloody Reorganization Based on Strength

The recent airstrikes by Britain and France have further propelled the international landscape toward a regression to the "law of the jungle" where the strong prey on the weak. In the future, international rules will be continuously simplified, the sovereignty of weaker nations will become virtually meaningless, and the world will enter an era of "competition based on strength"—economic power is important, but military strength is the ability to realize that power. The recent airstrikes by Britain and France have further propelled the international landscape toward a regression to the "law of the jungle" where the strong prey on the weak. In the future, international rules will be continuously simplified, the sovereignty of weaker nations will become virtually meaningless, and the world will enter an era of "competition based on strength"—economic power is important, but military strength is the ability to realize that power.

Specifically regarding Syria, the fate of the country as a unified state is hanging by a thread, and it is highly likely to fragment into multiple zones of control in the future: the north under Turkish control, the northeast as an autonomous region for Kurdish armed forces, the south as an area of infiltration by Israel and Jordan, while the Syrian government can only maintain control over central cities and coastal regions, turning the country into a "shattered mosaic." On a global scale, the unreasonable national borders drawn by colonial powers after World War II are likely to be redrawn by force under the law of the jungle. This process may lead to the emergence of new small nations, the disappearance of old medium-sized states, and a redivision of spheres of influence among major powers. The entire process will be fraught with refugees, hatred, and war.

. Negative impact on the counter-terrorism situation

This airstrike not only fails to fundamentally resolve the issue of counter-terrorism but may also exacerbate regional security crises. On one hand, it could prompt remnants of militant groups to further "disperse into smaller units" and adopt more covert modes of operation, posing new challenges to subsequent counter-terrorism efforts. On the other hand, military actions conducted without the consent of sovereign states remain a sensitive issue, potentially provoking retaliatory measures from the Syrian government and its allies and further intensifying the instability in Syria and its surrounding regions.

V. Enlightenment of the Era: Abandon Illusions and Prepare for an All-Round Struggle

The Anglo-French airstrikes on Syria clearly indicate that we are experiencing a turning point in history, shifting from "the game of disguised civilization" to "the naked collision of power." The widespread existence of international double standards further highlights the reality of power supremacy—the United States kidnapping and overthrowing leaders of other countries is glorified as "promoting democracy and defending freedom," while even a joking mention of similar actions by other nations is condemned as "terrorist threats and undermining international order." This rogue logic of "I can, but you cannot" is a true reflection of the current international order dominated by power supremacy.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the year, the joint airstrikes by Britain and France against Syria, carried out under the guise of "counter-terrorism," were in reality a demonstration of strength to the United States and a struggle for discourse power. This represents a modern reenactment of the logic of hegemonism and serves as a significant marker of the international order shifting from "disguised civilization" to "naked power confrontation." This operation not only exacerbated the turmoil in Syria and the Middle East but also propelled the global landscape toward a regression to the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak. In an era where power determines discourse, abandoning illusions and recognizing the reality of power struggles has become an inevitable choice for many countries in the international community.