Well that was quick. A few days after a chemical weapon attack in Idlib, Trump responded by firing over 50 cruise missiles at the airfield used to launch the attack. Way back in 2013 John Kerry was widely praised when he proclaimed that his deal removed all chemical weapons from Syria, but it seems that celebration was a bit premature. After vacillating over the chemical weapon attack for a few days, the president surprised many with decisive action. In a situation with no good choices, the strike was one of the better military options available. It imposed a price on violating international law, while limiting the US’s escalation of the conflict. According to reports, Russia was made aware of the impending attack, which means Assad knew as well. However, the absolute efficacy of the attack is far less important than displaying a resolve to match words with actions and avoiding an international incident that would arise with Russian casualties. The White House has been clear that this strike does not signal a major shift in overall Syrian policy, meaning the US is not committing itself to regime change. Russia and Syria are now in a tough position to respond. Any aggressive action would only invite further US involvement, a situation that neither party desires. Instead, Russia’s response has been to end cooperation with coalition air forces fighting ISIS. The agreement has already been violated multiple times by Russia, but it provided some clarity on the terms of engagement. Russia’s withdrawal opens the door to miscommunication, increasing the risk of direct engagement between the two forces. This doesn’t bode well for improved relations, but it should at least lay to rest the Russian puppet conspiracy theories. Just kidding!

Legal concerns have been raised, as they always are when the President uses military force unilaterally. With a long history of such strikes, these objections are hard to defend under domestic law so instead critics point to international law. The irony here is rich. International law didn’t prevent Syria and Russia from violating chemical weapon agreements they signed, but unilateral enforcement of the pact is suddenly the bigger issue. Further the hypocrisy of most domestic political opponents is on full display, shown by their silence on similar strikes in Yemen and Somalia under Obama. However, this does not make all criticisms baseless. There are serious concerns that unilateral actions could be used to provoke war and thus make congress’s power to declare war relatively meaningless. Due to the limited nature of the strike and refusal to escalate further, it seems that this strike does not risk conflagration. Increased US involvement in Syria, such as a commitment for regime change, should require congressional review, but Trump’s strike extracted a price for grossly violating international law with limited downsides. The still question remains, what’s next? While Syria, Russia, and Iran may not want further US involvement, the latter two might see use in testing Trump via their proxy.