It seems that President Trump was not prepared to wait for the outcomes of any OPCW investigation into the events at Khan Sheikhun. Last night a cruise missile strike was launched on the airbase and infrastructure which, the U.S. claimed, was the staging post for a regime-led chemical strike.

Two points to note:

1. Notice was given, including a 30 minute warning to the Russian military. This effectively means that the Syrian armed forces had just short of 30 minutes to take cover for incoming fire, but not enough time to transfer any chemical munitions. This is an unusual courtesy, and was presumably solely for the benefit of the Russians.
2. The missile strike of around 50 cruise missiles on a site that had a chance to evacuate came at a cost of six Syrians lives in addition to the alleged chemical weapons store. This is a statement on capability and resolve as opposed to a serious attempt to hamstring the Syrian forces

The rhetoric from the U.S. Administration this week still gives me the impression that despite this intervention there is no specific emphasis on regime change from President Trump; from his Secretary of State yes, but the President remains unspecific. Nevertheless the events show that the administration will hold President Assad responsible for the terms of war within that state – maintaining it within a framework of minimum of adherence to Geneva conventions. In other words: collateral damage is unpleasant, but an accepted component of this dirty civil war; deliberate targeting of civilians (women, children, civilian non-combatants) using indiscriminate means will not be tolerated, and any such capability will be degraded. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-basarl-al-assad-syria-military-strike-sarin-nerve-gas-a7671291.html).

The scope creep of western intervention has, until yesterday, skirted around the issue of direct confrontation with Syrian armed forces, relying instead on a campaign of proxy war. And in the absence of a specific Security Council resolution detailing the conditions of an international intervention against Syria, Russia is correct on one matter: yesterday’s strike does not fit under any aspect of international law; only under the norms of war. Then again, a chemical weapons strike on a purely civilian target does not fit under any component of international law either, and neither does that fit under the norms of war.

Despite the risks and frustrations of fighting a bitter conflict, presumably the Russians, and even the Iranians – who have historically suffered heavily from poison gas attacks during their war with Iraq in the 80s – must also balk at the use of gas on innocent civilians. In any event, the traditional caution has just been thrown out of the window, albeit with the most care taken to not upset the Russians. Which, given the integration of Russian and Syrian forces is a fairly challenging exercise.

Aside from the rights and wrongs of this new development, the timing was extraordinary. President Trump was hosting President Xi of China at his Florida resort as the missiles launched from the U.S. fleet.