With his first major military action, President Donald Trump has, once again, confounded experts struggling to interpret his approach to the world.
Until now he has refused to show his hand about plans for tackling adversaries such as North Korea, in an effort to keep them off balance. While some saw this reluctance as a sign that he was more bluster than substance, the 59 missiles fired at Syria in the early hours of Friday morning signalled to the world that he is ready to act when his red lines are crossed.
During the presidential campaign, Mr Trump pledged to pursue an “America First” foreign policy that would be less interventionist than George W Bush’s. He also hinted that he would be more willing than Barack Obama to countenance strongmen, such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and President Vladimir Putin in Russia, if it was in the US interest.
Once installed in the White House, Mr Trump had telegraphed that he would put less emphasis on human rights — inviting Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to the White House the week after the outgoing Obama administration had refused to grant the same privilege.
Yet, only days after Rex Tillerson, secretary of state, said the fate of Mr Assad would be “decided by the Syrian people”, Mr Trump switched course, apparently moved by the images of Syrian children killed in a gas attack.
“Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children . . . Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror,” Mr Trump said on Thursday.
According to Tom Wright, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, “it was enough for him to take America out of retirement as global policeman, at least for a while.”
The decision to strike Syria marks a dramatic change of tack for Mr Trump. When the Assad regime killed 1,400 civilians with sarin gas in 2013 — crossing a “red line” drawn by Mr Obama — Mr Trump said it made the US president look weak but he argued against intervention. When Mr Obama sought Congressional approval for air strikes on Syria, he tweeted: “Do NOT attack Syria, fix U.S.A.”
Friday morning’s missile assault came after James Mattis, US defence secretary, briefed Mr Trump on possible options and the president ultimately chose the narrowest targeted strike. One senior US military official said it was designed to warn Mr Assad not to use chemical weapons again.
Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children . . . Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror
In recent months, foreign leaders have tried to determine who Mr Trump would listen to as he formulated his foreign policy — his widely respected foreign policy team or his political aides and family members working in the White House. James Stavridis, a retired US navy admiral and former Nato commander, said Mr Trump had shown that he was open to professional advice.
“With this tactically sound, professionally executed strike in response to significant human rights violations, President Trump shows above all that he is willing and able to take advice from the first-class national security team he has assembled,” said Mr Stavridis. “We already knew he can spin on a policy dime — the significance here is his use of sound security advice.”
Richard Fontaine, president of the Center for a New American Security, said the Syria actions highlighted how Mr Trump had already evolved in office. “The president has moved from implacable opposition to using force in the Middle East for any reason but counterterrorism, to punitive strikes following a humanitarian atrocity,” he said. “That suggests a new and broader reading of when American interests and values demand a forcible response.”
James Jeffrey, former deputy national security adviser to President George W Bush, said the internationalist language Mr Trump used on Thursday was “very significant” given the isolationist tone that he had struck during his campaign and inaugural address. Mr Trump called for “civilised nations to join us” to end the bloodshed in Syria, ending his short address with: “God Bless America and the entire world.”
“This looks like Trump embracing a very strong international position,” said Mr Jeffrey. “This could have been a declaration given by FDR, JFK, either of the Bushes or most other presidents since World War II. It’s not an address that would have been given by President Obama I don’t think.”
Follow Demetri Sevastopulo on Twitter: @dimi
Sample the FT’s top stories for a week
You select the topic, we deliver the news.