President’s Trumps early days never saw much of a honeymoon and while he’s seen success in rolling back regulations and the Supreme Court nomination, he’s also faced a litany of troubles. From setbacks in the courts over immigration to low poll numbers to roadblocks on healthcare reform, he has faced stiff resistance from domestic opponents. Fortunately for his administration, most of these losses are temporary or inconsequential, while the wins are a bit more permanent. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment and the CRA regulatory rollbacks require congressional, rather than bureaucratic action to reimpose. In recent weeks, however, his foreign policy has garnered praise from many erstwhile detractors. The Syrian strikes exposed the feckless policy of his predecessor, highlighted by the reappearance of chemical weapon use and reports of up to three tons of chemical weapons remaining. His use of the MOAB and strong response to chemical weapon use, have driven foreign governments to take his threats seriously. Certain commentators will say that it’s a sorry state of affairs when launching a military strike brings praise, but they miss the forest for the trees. Some praise may come from the approval of military action, but it also arises from the extremely low expectations set for Trump. Rather than the caricature of a nuclear armed Russian puppet with no impulse control, he displayed a measured, yet serious response to Russia’s client state. No matter the strategic benefit of launching the strike, he undermined a number of attacks on his person in doing so.

Far more important than accolades from the chattering class, his actions have reestablished military action as a credible threat. The seeming casualness in which Trump launched a military strike on a sovereign nation over a chocolate cake with the Chinese Prime Minister seemed to have quite the impact. After Trump made some conciliatory statements, backing off his more heated campaign rhetoric, China threatened tougher sanctions on North Korea in response to a planned nuclear test. While the extent and probability of any action are up for debate, they do represent a shift in China’s past dealing. Further, the belief that the Trump administration was seriously considering responding to nuclear provocation in North Korea was highlighted over the row about a US carrier’s mission. The administration’s announcement to deploy a carrier in the Sea of Japan was quickly responded to by both Russia and China which both deployed ships to the region. After it was discovered that the mission was not as immediate as implied, state news agencies immediately took to attacking Trump for ‘duping’ local countries. This should be seen for what it is, propaganda designed to reduce domestic perceptions that the Trump administration represents a credible use of force and undermine fresh impressions of American strength. While the uncertainty also drew concerns from allies in the region, the presidential candidate in South Korea still had this to say, ‘it seems to me that Trump is a person who takes responsibility and action based on what he says.” The South Pacific remains a potential powder keg and any conflict with North Korea could easily escalate into nuclear war, an outcome that North Korea has prepared for extensively. However, for any solution to be found, a military response needs to be seen as a legitimate choice. Diplomacy without a military option leads to the last two decades of dead end appeasement and bribery. Trump has helped prospects of a lasting peace by in putting it back on the table.