He also made a strategic departure from his predecessor Barrack Obama in the matter of use of arms against Syria. If Obama was unwilling to use military options to remove Bashar al Assad, get rid of the terrorists and ISIS and restore peace in Syria, Trump is left with no other option but to resort to military action. The political situation has slipped out of his hand.

Trump and his cronies have been describing the missile attack as a deterrent; a warning to Syria to refrain from repeating this demeanor. But his aides did not clarify how could killings be a deterrent to killings? Trump’s action would simply bolster the moral of the ISIS and Islamic state. He has in fact jeopardized the Russian campaign against these forces. Trump came to power promising a reset of ties with Russia, and openly expressing his admiration for Putin. But air strikes, accompanied by blunt criticism of Russia’s failure to stop Assad deploying chemical weapons, have upended that relationship.

Russia is not going to accept the situation lying low and has already said it will help Syria boost its air defences, a clear signal to Washington that any further intervention faces a serious risk of escalation, particularly as Moscow has also threatened to cancel a military coordination hotline.

Meanwhile speculations are being made that Moscow may force the UN to adopt a motion of censor against USA for this airstrike. Russian strategy hinges on the possibility of It bouncing back on the global scenario in a more determined and fierce manner. The political campaign launched by the western and NATO along with the EU countries would not be allowed to further jeopardize future of Russia and its economy in the future. The challenges are really tough before Putin and this he can overcome only by adopting a more aggressive posture. Russian leadership also seriously nurses the feeling that the pro-US forces and groups which had sceptical of the approach and attitude of Trump had in a well plnned move made Trump to fall in line.

Isolationists like Ukip’s Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall opposed to the airstrikes, are upset to find they were dealing with a Clinton-Bush-Blair continuum. America’s liberal class which has been highly critical of Trump’s election is still in a reactive spasm to anything involving Trump.

Donald Trump’s decision to launch US military strikes in Syria without congressional approval has raised questions about the legality of his action. Trump would find it tough to justify as legal. It appears that Trump with the quest to project himself as the most concerned and able administrator was resorting to some of the worst actions that are even detrimental to the American interest.

The strikes have also split the US lawmakers and legal experts whether these were constitutional. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to serve as a check on the president, requiring the commander-in-chief to consult Congress when dispatching US combats troops into an armed conflict. It enables the president to act unilaterally in the event of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

In the present case Trump’s action goes against the spirit of the American Constitution. The White House has framed the legality of the strikes as a matter of national security and protecting against the potential threat to US forces in the region. Undeniably he was following in the footsteps of his predecessor. In 2011, the Obama administration argued its bombing campaign in Libya was within the president’s legal authority as its intent was aimed at “preserving regional stability and supporting the United Nation Security Council’s credibility and effectiveness.

Although Obama did not proceed with military action against the Syrian regime, his administration eventually launched airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq targeted at Islamic State. For that action, lawyers in the Obama White House relied on the AUMF passed by Congress in 2001.

US president’s own aims were more important to him than saving Syrian babies’ lives. But he preferred to ignore his own aims. This will not augur well for Trump in the long run. Trump had broken international law to enforce international law. This violation of law will reflect in future actions of Trump and would create administrative problems.

For years, Trump was adamant that he would stay out of Syria. Even when chemical weapons were used in August 2013, killing an estimated 1,300 people in Ghouta, Trump was firm: “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict?” But the same Trump has made a complete volte face. Denouement of his own stance has disappointed his trusted friends and allies like Hopkins, Nigel Farage and the neo-Nazi leader Richard Spencer. They feel disappointed with the action of the true isolationist.

The most important message that Trump sent through his action is; he has no foreign policy at all. The American foreign policy rests on his whims. Earlier people had nursed the notion that Trump had a consistent foreign policy, not a bundle of wild contradictory impulses. But they were proved wrong. Like Richard Nixon he wanted to project his image of a free thinker ruler. His latest action would force the global players, especially the countries of the south east Asia to revise their strategies and contour of the relations towards America.

But that cannot alter the fact that, even as you welcome the act, its author remains wholly untrustworthy. Trump wanted us to believe he had been moved to action by the pictures of dead children in Khan Sheikhun. But what of all the “beautiful babies” killed away from the TV cameras these last six years, by bombs of a different variety? When they were being slaughtered, Trump was happy to shrug off their deaths, sending his secretary of state and his UN ambassador out just days ago to give Assad the wink that he could carry on as before. It’s not reassuring to think that the American president does not listen to his intelligence briefings or even read the papers, but only acts when a tragedy hits primetime.

But what makes his newfound compassion ring all the more hollow is that while Trump is ready to bomb a runway for those beautiful babies who are dead, he still won’t let America open its doors to those who cling to life. Refugees from Syria remain on Trump’s banned list, including every “child of God” traumatised by Assad and his barrel bombs, raining fire from the sky.

Putin has charged the US with violating international law “under a false pretext”. Its deputy ambassador to UN, Vladimir Safronkov also warned “extremely serious” consequences could follow the strike. The prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, said the action “completely ruined relations”. Russia would bolster Assad’s air defenses Putin is also ready to cut off the “deconfliction” hotline it uses to avoid clashes between US and Russian forces. (IPA Service)